Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

The Supreme Court ruled against allowing partial-birth abortions today.

link

Although I agree with their outcome, the SCOTUS decision on partial birth abortions here is poor. They seem to indicate that the problem isn't the viability of the fetus but whether it is still alive when it is in the birth canal. They allow a doctor to use forceps to tear the baby apart in the womb but don't allow a doctor to partially deliver a living baby and then kill it. That flat out does not make sense.

It almost sounds like they are trying to maintain a "right" so long as it doesn't sound too gross. Either abortion in the second trimester is allowable because of a right of self determination or it isn't a right because the fetus is viable and alive. You can't base jurisprudence on where the baby is located at the time of death.

_________________

My own opinion is that abortion is always the death of a child, in which case there really isn't much difference whether they kill him/her inside the womb or outside. But I do think that partial-birth only further dehumanizes the unborn. So I'm at least glad the legislation is moving away from the dehumanization process, but I'd still like to see some legislation enacted that protects their rights, too.

_________________

...What about animal Abortion? Can we still abort unwanted animals?

_________________

NO.

But you can kill it after it's born.

_________________

Cola, the RULES clearly state that the cat must be outside the womb BEFORE you set it on fire.

Now let's get back on topic, shall we?

_________________

What if it's Schroedinger's Cat?

On topic: I've always felt mixed about abortions. I can honestly see the validity of arguments for and against abortions. I guess the real issue becomes where the lines of the beginning of human life and parental rights are drawn. At the end of the day, I'm not a woman, so it's impossible for me to ever innately understand and empathize with all the factors a woman has to go through with child-bearing. Yeah, I hear a lot of Pro-Lifers advocating adoption...but how many of them have actually personally adopted a child themselves? You'd think they'd willingly participate in something they so strongly advocate.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I am completely opposed to partial-birth abortions. I feel that if the baby is old enough to survive outside the womb then it should be allowed to live. If they do not wish to keep the baby, put it up for adoption

_________________

Y'know, Gravey, a lot of people will tell you that, since you're male, you don't have the right to an opinion here.
I disagree with them, though. It takes 2 to make a baby and I really believe that fathers (the ones that will be dads*, anyway) should have a right to voice their opinions (whether or not those should be weighted equally is another matter).

While I am still 50/50 on what people would call a "traditional abortion", partial birth just seems VERY wrong. I mean, if what is done during a partial birth abortion was done to a child, equally developed, but outside the womb, the person doing it would be strung up in the middle of town. Even if you don't buy the brutality of it as a reason to ban it, surely people can see the inconsistency in the laws.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Would partial birth abortion become a legitimate option if the life of the mother was in danger? One of those situations in which it came down to a choice of either the life of the mother or the life of the baby?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I'm not sure it'd really come to that, though, as the baby is, more or less, "born" before the procedure is done. It'd seem to me that, if the baby can be removed that far from the womb, it'd be possible to go a little further and bring the baby into the world.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

THANK YOU!!!

Oh, he has a right to an opinion. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but I don't think (if Gravey was in such a situation) that he should have FINAL, 100%, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, say-so. Because, unfortunately, often, child-rearing responsibilities fall on the mother. Too often, dads cut and run and don't take responsibility for children they've sired.

I don't like the idea of partial-birth abortions. It's pretty barbaric. Like BTG said, if a baby is old enough to (possibly) survive outside the womb, it should be carried to term and given up for adoption. Abortion (if it's going to happen) should occur in the first trimester.

Like SR said, I don't think it'd come to that, but if it did, I certainly hope the mother's life would be taken into consideration.

EDIT:I just had a thought....what if it became possible to do "fetus transplants"? To take unwanted fetuses and transplant them into people who DO want children, but perhaps can't have them? Like an organ transplant? Something to think about...

_________________

My boyfriend wants to have children, and he wants to have them through getting pregnant himself (i.e. having a fertilized egg implanted inside his abdominal region, letting it grow "naturally," and having it removed again 9 months later). It's a procedure not yet fully developed and workable, but he still wants to do it...whereas I don't even want children, let alone want him having it in such a way that would be obviously taxing on his body (two surguries 9 months apart plus all the physiological stuff inbetween). It's really a concern for his own health more than anything else, as men aren't designed to take such a toll to their bodies the way women are.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I think, if that's the case, the decision should be left up to the mother. But even still, would partial birth be the way to go?

_________________

I don't necessarily agree with the outcome, but everything else you wrote here is right on. It seems like they are banning something based more on the "gross" factor rather than legitimate differences in the types of abortion.

Here's a question though . . .People are always bringing up dangers to the life of the mother . . . Are there really cases where partial-birth abortion is the only viable option in the case where not aborting will cause her death? In what scenarios are "standard" abortions not an option?



Three reasons your should dump your boyfriend:
He wants children.
You do not want children.
He might be slightly nuts.

After you dump him, hopefully he will realize he is delusional and consider adoption as a far better choice. With a different partner of course.

Or maybe he'll give birth to a sailboat or a large sandwich like in that one episode of The Cosby Show where all the men got pregnant.

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

Well, to my understanding PBAs are used after the first trimester, when I suppose a fetus is too developed to use a standard abortion. Lemme go see if I can wikipedia this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion



Come on, that's kind of rude. PMG is obviously intelligent enough to make his own decisions on this.

_________________

i can see no reason why elective partial birth abortions would be a good idea. i fully support normal abortion and i also fully support a heck of a lot of people having less babies.

it would be really messed up for someone to pick that. it's just a mess. But my personal feelings are that if the mother is about to die, and if the child is about to die then i could understand it. i don't know if many people would select their life over their child's, but if it's an emergency--then something that grotesque just might be necessary.


and some people talk about the slippery slope argument, but i hate to say--the slippery slope argument is a complete logical fallacy. it just isn't true that because one small thing happens, it leads to another obliquely related thing. however, i would be upset if roe v. wade was overturned, and i could see that being a problem, i think that this partial birth abortion ban isn't some huge violation of rights as other people seem to.

on principle, however, i think it's funny that conservatives advocate smaller government, except they often try to legislate morality. that bothers me a heck of a lot. i don't think men should have no opinion about abortion, but the US govt is overwhelmingly run by old white christian men, which isn't inherently bad, but i get annoyed when they legislate other people's life choices (what i''m really getting at is i'd like to see more women's input on issues about women. it sucks that there are almost no women in government. it's just not a sensible cross-section of our country)

Wha- bu- but- how- how the- but- I- I mean...
Wouldn't he need a womb transplant for that? Can they do that? What about all the hormones and such?
...and how do you explain that to people? "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant!" -"WHAT?!"

Not your kid, not your body... best to leave well enough alone because we all know that if abortion is banned outright, it will occur anyways. Best to keep it safe for those who wish to have them performed. When performed illegally, the possibility of death is increased insurmountably. And, by the ideas of the church, if the mother dies as well, that means there's twice the fatalities. Try having that on your conscience while trying to impose a law who's only pro argument stems from the Bible and Christian sentimentality while living in a country where "church and state" are meant to be separate.

Then again... I'm not a woman. I just further find it inappropriate that the majority of people arguing over this issue are men, when they don't have to deal with it. Since you can't get knocked up, you've no right to stand in their way, even though the chauvinism in your holy writ tries to state otherwise.

_________________

Perhaps, but not with the regularity that it occurs while it is legal. Not only that, but the intent of the law is to preserve the rights of people who are marginalized and dehumanized. Saying that abortion should be legalized because it will occur anyway is not much different than saying KKK lynchings ought to be legalized.


That's not true. There are plenty of women out there who are pro-life. Some of them right here on this forum. Just as there are plenty of men who are pro-abortion. That's essentially misinformation intended to make the issue look like one of gender rights, and not of human rights, i.e., to make it look like us "male oppressors" are trying to impose our will on "helpless women."

The real issue is this: are we going to treat unborn children as human beings, with rights as citizens of this nation, or are we going to dehumanize them and marginalize them to the point that they are mere cattle, or worse?

_________________

But, abortion is a medical procedure. Lynching isn't.



The reason why I said that is that the Bible (in it's current translations) is written in a chauvinistic voice.

Take this into consideration. If you don't want one, don't have one. It's similar to tattoo issue... if your faith disallows them, then you should not try to make them illegal because you're butthurt and can't get one because god will send you to your room without dessert. The only reason I make that comparison is that they are things that are done to the human body.

Abortions are voluntary in many cases, and people will get them, and have gotten them when they were illegal. And since the majority of the pro-life argument seems to say that life begins at conception... illegal abortions can cause twice the fatal casualties as the legal ones can do (in your book.)

_________________

Only because a doctor performs it in a laboratory. I'm sure that, by the same logic, if lynchings were overseen by doctors in a laboratory, it could be considered a medical procedure also. The result is the same: a human being is deprived of his or her right to live.


May I ask you, how much Greek or Hebrew you've studied that you can make this assessment? Please keep in mind, I've studied these languages for a number of years in both college and seminary. If you're going to challenge the validity of current translations, I expect you to do so based on some understanding of the original languages.

But as concerning this issue, I have not referenced the Bible at all yet. I have appealed only to the the nature of human life. Unborn children are human beings, for goodness sake, despite efforts of certain people to "redefine" them in order to dehumanize them. The right to life is the most basic of all human rights, and yet we are systematically depriving people of that fundamental right. And when this fundamental right is not respected and enforced, then all other rights are basically meaningless.


The problem with that logic is that Law should be concerned about what is right, not necessarily what potentially accomplishes the most expedient result. The unnecessary taking of human life is always wrong, and our laws should reflect that.

Furthermore, your argument stands if and only if a law prohibiting abortion serves as absolutely no deterrent. That is unreasonable. I would think that such laws would actually curb the number of abortions performed, and therefore save lives. True, there will be a small number of illegal abortions, but overall, I think the decline in overall abortions would be quite significant.

Again, I do not believe that saying, "People are just going to break the law anyway," stands as an adequate criterion for determining the rightness of any law.

_________________

Thanks, SC. Amorican, there's TONS of facets to the relationship I have with my boyfriend that you don't even know about. This is just ONE thing that we have that is a disagreement between us, whereas there's at least a hundred-fold more things that he and I DO agree on. Beyond even all that, we are earnestly in love with each other. That sort of love doesn't get thrown away just because the two people involved have a dispute. To think otherwise would just be proof of how sadly underdeveloped your sense of relationships truly is. To love is the greatest reason to live, IMO, and you're sorely missing out if you think that a single dispute is grounds for a dismissal of such love.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

My post was mostly meant as a joke . . .

But now that you've made it all serious, I will ask: How do you plan on resolving this? Your boyfriend wants children. So much so that he wants to impregnate himself (this is where the "nuts" part comes in ). You don't want children. So what happens? Are you going to have to raise the children that he wants and you don't? Or is he going to have to live an unfulfilled life because he wasn't able to have children? I know it's only ONE of many facets of your relationship, otherwise you wouldn't be in a relationship. But it's a BIG ONE.
If you are both adamant about your views on children, which of you'ze is gonna give up his life plan for the sake of your partner?

I'm in a relationship that has a particular BIG ONE too . . . and I'm still not sure how it is going to work itself out.

Yes yes, this is completely off topic. Sorry.
Abortions: Undesireable but not my decision
Morning-After-Pill: Good and should be on the shelf next to the condoms.

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

I think it should be OK to abort if the fetus does not yet have brain activity, or if it's so malformed it would die either way, or if chances are the mother would die. I think that, when the fetus' brain, and thus mind, becomes active, it becomes a person, untill that, it's just a bunch of cells with human DNA. With no active brain and no mind involved, there's no suffering. Many argue that you should still not abort, because with luck, if you let it grow, it could become a person. And preventing that person to come into existance would be the same as murder. But by that logic, using a condom would also be murder, since the gametes don't even get the chance to fertilize. And it's not only gametes. In theory, you could artifically, under the right circumstances and with enough technology, turn almost any cell in your body into a fetus by triggering the right genes. Besides, even if they do fertilize, they aren't guarranteed to survive. Many don't. My sister had a miscarriage a couple of weeks ago, wich is a pitty, but you don't really mourn a fetus as if it was a born child and you don't have a funeral for it.

Then it was poorly delivered and/or in poor taste. Remember--tone of voice isn't imbedded with text on a screen. That's where emoticons come in handy.



I don't know yet--there's a lot of talk that has to be done for that. Keep in mind, too, that he's still only my boyfriend--not my husband. For all I know (though I'm not looking or wishing for this to happen), he and I could split up at some point, too, for whatever reason(s).

Back to the topic of abortion, here's a hypothetical (yet very likely in some years' time) scenario: With our knowledge of medicine advancing as it has been, we will inevitably be able to tell what diseases a fetus still in the womb will be definately subjected to in the course of its life (think Gattaca again). Suppose you and your SO have a baby on the way, and you learn at a meeting with your obstetrician that the baby will be born with certain deformities and/or terminal diseases, making its life a difficult one to endure. Do you abort for the sake of sparing the human that would be a life of pain?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

The problem with that logic is that suffering has nothing to do with whether it is morally right to kill someone or not. We can pretty much kill someone completely painlessly (like the methods used capital punishments), and that doesn't make it right to use on anyone.

That reminds me of something else I was thinking the other day (sorry, this is more on the topic of abortions in general than partial-birth abortions). If abortions are okay, then is it perfectly acceptable for women to drink and smoke during pregnancy? If you think about it, it's pretty much the same as an abortion, except better, because rather than killing the child, you only permanently damage the child with things like learning disabilities and fetal alcohol syndrome.

_________________

That is one of the most absurd statements you've ever made. Besides, since your faith doesn't smile upon abortion at all, why does it even matter to you? You're never going to be in a situation that would garner an abortion, nor would you support anyone who would have to be put into that circumstance, even if their life depends on it (which is why most partial-birth abortions happen). So, what are you telling me, Didy, you in your own foolish pride and zealotry would condemn a woman who wishes this of themselves to suffer and die? Theoretically, you just told me that you are okay with being the hand that commits the murder... And that you yourself are okay with killing someone without provocation... all because the Bible told you so. That makes me sick.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. How can you say you treasure what your God calls a gift; life, and then be so quick to take it away from someone.

However you cut it, that's just sick and wrong.

------------------------

That aside, what morally determines it is that the morality comes primarily from Christianity. We aren't all Christians, so why inflict the rest of us with your laws? Or have you soon forgotten that church and state are separate?

Moral of the story, you aren't getting an abortion, so leave them alone and leave the issue alone. It's better that they get it in a clinic than sacrifice not only their life and/or the life of their child in a dingy secret backalley procedure. And by Biblical logic, that would be taking two lives instead of one.

Which path is more murderous?

_________________

Abortion is an ethical issue, not a religious one. I believe abortion is wrong because one of my ethical morals is that you don't take the life of another innocent person - which is a moral that non-religious people normally have too.
I don't think ANYONE argues against abortion when the mother is in danger; at least not anyone here.

_________________

Okay, tell me this: if we were to take a 2 year old child, and perform the same medical procedure, would you hesitate to call that murder? Or if it were an Alzheimer's patient?


The United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution both guarantee the fundamental right to life. Abortion systematically denies that right to certain individuals.


As I stated before, I feel the law should reflect what is good and right, and should do everything possible to save ALL lives, even if that means preventing abortion and arresting, trying, and convicting back-alley abortionists who are practicing medicine outside the jurisdiction of the law. With abortions legal, more women will have them, which means more children murdered. With the law in place, I would anticipate a significant decrease in the number of overall deaths.


That is highly judgmental on your part. I never once said that I wouldn't support someone who required an abortion for the sake of their own health, and I am appalled that you would even make such a claim. What you have just done is called "Straw Man Fallacy," and I am terribly disappointed that you would resort to such tactics. By putting such words in my mouth and presumably such thoughts in my head, you hope to characterize me as a heartless, uncompassionate person, for no other reason than that I disagree with you. On the contrary, my compassion is not only for the mother but also for the child. I am simply not convinced, as you are, that abortion is the best answer to any of these situations.

In the future, I would appreciate it if you refrain from this.


And I would ask this question: suppose he or she was a child already born, and had disabilities or as they used to call them, "birth defects." Do we abandon the child to die? Or, for that matter, if it were an adult with disabilities? I have known plenty of parents who have had disabled children, and have just as much joy and love for them as any parent of a healthy child, despite the extra efforts they must put into their care of them. Just ask Stinko Girl. Her brother is mentally disabled; ask her if she'd rather not have her brother (sorry if I'm intruding here, Hannah, but I know how deeply you feel for your brother). I've also known people whose parents were physically and/or mentally disabled, and yet they still love and care for them.

Honestly, I see no difference here. If a child can be loved, even when disabled, then why deny that?

_________________

Good point. My closest friend and Spirit Brother has brain damage that he incurred from a bully with a hockey stick when he was 12, which put him in a 2-year coma and has left him with permanent physiological, psychological, and social quirks to his nature. But I still love him all the same (for the record, I never knew him before the coma). I guess my question was me thinking more along the lines of someone who would obviously not glean much of anything from life (a la Terry Schiavo--though not many babies are born vegetables, that I know of except baby carrots). I guess then the question becomes a matter of how we judge the value of life. What is important in life? What makes life worth living?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!