Supreme Court upholds ban on Partial Birth Abortion

[recxjake]

IMO this is good.


Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure
Story Highlights• 5-4 ruling could open door to revisiting Roe v. Wade
• Justice Kennedy: Law does not violate constitutional right to abortion
• New justices Alito, Roberts provided solid conservative majority to uphold ban
• Federal law has never gone into effect pending court rulings
By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.

The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

At issue is the constitutionality of a federal law banning a rarely performed type of abortion carried out in the middle-to-late second trimester.

The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote in these divided appeals, said the federal law "does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right." He was joined by his fellow conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Roberts.

Sole woman on bench reads bitter dissent
In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

She called the ruling "alarming" and noted the conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.

The Justice Department and abortion rights groups have offered differing views of the legislation's impact on women's overall second trimester access to the procedure, and whether the procedure is ever medically necessary.

This was the first time the high court had heard a major abortion case in six years, and since then, its makeup has changed, with Roberts and Alito now on board.

Their presence on the bench provided the solid conservative majority needed to allow the federal ban to go into effect, with Kennedy providing the key fifth vote for a majority.

Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, a key abortion rights supporter over her quarter century on the bench.

Doctors call this type of late-term abortion an "intact dilation and evacuation." Abortion foes term it a "partial-birth abortion."

Three federal appeals courts had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional because it does not provide a "health exception" for pregnant women facing a medical emergency. The outcome of this latest challenge before the court's new ideological makeup could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the health exception.

In states where such exceptions are allowed, the lists of possible health risks include severe blood loss, damage to vital organs and loss of fertility. Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke. Doctors are given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed.

The federal law has never gone into effect, pending the outcome of nearly three years of legal appeals.

Specifically, the ban encompasses what doctors call "intact dilation and evacuation" (also known as IDX), which Congress in its legislation termed inhumane.

It is a rarely used second-trimester procedure, designed to reduce complications to the woman. More common is "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), used in 95 percent of pre-viability second-trimester abortions, according to Planned Parenthood. Both are generally performed after the 21st week of pregnancy.

A major part of the legal dispute was whether the federal ban also includes the relatively more common "standard D&E abortions." The government contends the law does not, and is sufficiently narrow not to place an "undue burden" on a woman's reproductive choices.

Raw numbers were also at the heart of the debate, because the two sides disagreed on how often the procedure is performed. Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Justice Department's top lawyer before the court, suggested it is rarely performed, and that other medical options are available, so banning it would therefore not be a real barrier to women.

Abortions rights supporters say "intact" abortions are a medically accepted pre-viability, second-trimester procedure.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, some states have tried to place restrictions and exceptions on access to the procedure, prompting a string of high court "clarifications" on the issue over the years.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html

[go bowe]

IMO this is good.would you consider posting a link to something this important?

and don't bother with giving us links to newsmax or any of the other crap sources you use...

i'll see if i can find a copy of the decision before i comment on it...

[Stinger]

would you consider posting a link to something this important?

and don't bother with giving us links to newsmax or any of the other crap sources you use...

i'll see if i can find a copy of the decision before i comment on it...

AP Story

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJ4HT80&show_article=1

[Pittsie]

The NPR story I heard back in November indicated that the IDX was medically necessary in some cases and that the federal bill wasn't supported medically (or something like that).

[SBK]

Preventing babies from having their brains sucked out is really going to piss some people off.

[recxjake]

Preventing babies from having their brains sucked out is really going to piss some people off.


Obama, Edwards Blast Abortion Ruling by Court


Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards, both Democratic Party candidates for president in 2008, agreed to disagree with Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on partial birth abortions.

Obama issued a statement expressing concern that the decision would "embolden" state legislatures to further restrict access to abortion procedures.

"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women," Obama said in a statement. "As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient.



"I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women,” Obama said.


Edwards, who twice missed Senate votes on partial birth abortion while he was in the Senate, said Wednesday he "could not disagree more strongly" with the Supreme Court's decision.


"The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women," Edwards said. "This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election."

[BigChiefDave]

How ANYONE can support a partial birth abortion is beyond me. Sickening!

[BigChiefDave]

Obama, Edwards Blast Abortion Ruling by Court


Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards, both Democratic Party candidates for president in 2008, agreed to disagree with Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on partial birth abortions.

Obama issued a statement expressing concern that the decision would "embolden" state legislatures to further restrict access to abortion procedures.

"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women," Obama said in a statement. "As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient.



"I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women,” Obama said.


Edwards, who twice missed Senate votes on partial birth abortion while he was in the Senate, said Wednesday he "could not disagree more strongly" with the Supreme Court's decision.


"The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women," Edwards said. "This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election."WTF is the matter with these assclowns?!

[SBK]

WTF is the matter with these assclowns?!

No nomination if they don't support killing babies. :mad:

[recxjake]

Giuliani: 'I agree with it'...
Romney: 'A step forward'...
McCain: I'm very happy...
Obama: 'I strongly disagree'...

[Cochise]

How ANYONE can support a partial birth abortion is beyond me. Sickening!

I agree.

You can see where someone might believe that an embryo isn't sentient or whatever, but partial birth abortion is just complete stomach-turning barbarism.

[dirk digler]

IMHO I don't think Obama or any reasonable person who disagrees with this decision is upset at banning partial birth abortion per se. I think the way they see it this is just the first step in trying to get rid of Roe v Wade and that is what upsets them the most.

[tiptap]

Trisomy 18 or 13 or 2 and mother at risk. Other severe neural tube defects including anacephalic conditions. Removing a medical option because of political or religious predetermination should mean at least the government is now responsible for additional expense to aggressively maintain these defective developmental results.

[memyselfI]

IMO this is good.

It gives the PLers SOMETHING for all their efforts while serving as a wake up call to the majority in the US who support abortion rights through the first semester (when 98% of the abortions in the country are done) and that right is still safe and sound...

safer today than yesterday, IMO.

[BucEyedPea]

Trisomy 18 or 13 or 2 and mother at risk. Other severe neural tube defects including anacephalic conditions. Removing a medical option because of political or religious predetermination should mean at least the government is now responsible for additional expense to aggressively maintain these defective developmental results.
How many are done for that reason? :hmmm:
Couldn't they have known sooner?

[tiptap]

That is just it BEP. Things including infections and injury as well as timing of determining potential genetic defects are not easily ascertained at some moment. I don't know the statistics. What I would like is for an informed and private decision to remain that way instead of the blooming intervention of active medical police questioning what is never an easy decision. I just insist we all are willing to pick up the check as we decide to force decisions.

[BucEyedPea]

That is just it BEP. Things including infections and injury as well as timing of determining potential genetic defects are not easily ascertained at some moment. I don't know the statistics. What I would like is for an informed and private decision to remain that way instead of the blooming intervention of active medical police questioning what is never an easy decision. I just insist we all are willing to pick up the check as we decide to force decisions.
Well, I also don't support that we pick up the check either for other's misfortune unless it's done via charity. But it would also depend on the defect as far as I'm concerned. We don't engage in homicide just because people aren't born perfect. The group that endorsed that didn't wind up so well off eventually. Eugenics were never my bag.

[tiptap]

Let's add the that many physicians fail to give patients their total options because the physician may have moral quandries. As such puts off early options leaving on only induced third trimester options.

[Brock]

Let's add the that many physicians fail to give patients their total options because the physician may have moral quandries. As such puts off early options leaving on only induced third trimester options.

Straw man.

[recxjake]

HILLARY: 'Erosion of our constitutional rights'...
GIULIANI: 'I agree with it'...
OBAMA: 'I strongly disagree'...
ROMNEY: 'A step forward'...
MCCAIN: I'm very happy...
EDWARDS: 'I could not disagree more strongly'...

[memyselfI]

How many are done for that reason? :hmmm:
Couldn't they have known sooner?

Sometimes they don't. But this situation affects so few women that I think it's good to get this particular issue off the board because the appearing to cling to this segment of the argument has had detrimental effects to the pro-choice position as a whole.

Regardless, I sympathize with any women who go through this particular situation and hope that Planned Parenthood or other organizations create programs that will assist these women to get the services they need safely out of the country. I'm pretty sure that will be the next step to ensure their options are still open.

This will allow the pro-choice movement to focus on the more FAR REACHING portions of their position and ones that stand to lose more ground if they do not get off the insistance that 'PBA' remain a viable option to 'choose.'

[ClevelandBronco]

That is just it BEP. Things including infections and injury as well as timing of determining potential genetic defects are not easily ascertained at some moment. I don't know the statistics. What I would like is for an informed and private decision to remain that way instead of the blooming intervention of active medical police questioning what is never an easy decision. I just insist we all are willing to pick up the check as we decide to force decisions.

You call it a medical procedure.

I call it premeditated murder.

No wonder we can't find common ground on this issue, eh?

[memyselfI]

You call it a medical procedure.

I call it premeditated murder.

No wonder we can't find common ground on this issue, eh?

That is because both sides are completely diminishing the value of the other's argument by using political rhetoric vs. facts.

It is a medical procedure that causes the death of a fetus that could survive sans utero. That is not murder. You'd be better off saying it's manslaughter or something less propaganda based and more realistic. As would the rabid PC crowd be better off acknowledging that a viable life would be snuffed out regardless of the good intentions that cause it to be.

[redbrian]

That is because both sides are completely diminishing the value of the other's argument by using political rhetoric vs. facts.

It is a medical procedure that causes the death of a fetus that could survive sans utero. That is not murder. You'd be better off saying it's manslaughter or something less propaganda based and more realistic. As would the rabid PC crowd be better off acknowledging that a viable life would be snuffed out regardless of the good intentions that cause it to be.

Manslaughter is an accident, this procedure is no accident it is premeditated.
This was the correct response (and long over due) that the vast majority of Americans will agree with.

[ClevelandBronco]

You'd be better off saying it's manslaughter or something less propaganda based and more realistic. As would the rabid PC crowd be better off acknowledging that a viable life would be snuffed out regardless of the good intentions that cause it to be.

Thanks for the tip. I'll continue to call it as I see it.

[memyselfI]

Manslaughter is an accident, this procedure is no accident it is premeditated.
This was the correct response (and long over due) that the vast majority of Americans will agree with.

I agree it was the correct response...

for vastly different reasons. I'm Pro Choice but thought this particular issue was a small gain/large pain issue for the movement.

The accident part would be whatever went haywire that caused the procedure to be necessary in the first place.

[CRONUS]

I agree.

You can see where someone might believe that a fertilized embryo isn't sentient or whatever, but partial birth abortion is just complete stomach-turning barbarism.

I am going to be one of the lone partial dissenters. I don't favor partial term abortion except where the life of the mother is at stake. My problem with this ruling is that it does not take that into account and provide for that exception.

[redbrian]

I agree it was the correct response...

for vastly different reasons. I'm Pro Choice but thought this particular issue was a small gain/large pain issue for the movement.

The accident part would be whatever went haywire that caused the procedure to be necessary in the first place.

That is by the far the most fuged up logic I have seen in a long time. The “accident does not terminate life the medical staff does.

[redbrian]

I am going to be one of the lone partial dissenters. I don't favor partial term abortion except where the life of the mother is at stake. My problem with this ruling is that it does not take that into account and provide for that exception.

What I heard on NPR is that it does take into consideration the life of the
mmother but not the health.

Also at that point would not a caesarian be as effective and safer for both parties? mother but not the health.

[memyselfI]

That is by the far the most fuged up logic I have seen in a long time. The “accident does not terminate life the medical staff does.

No, I did not mean literally. I meant the accident that would cause this to be manslaughter would be the accident of nature that causes either the illness or the defect that made the procedure necessary.

[redbrian]

No, I did not mean literally. I meant the accident that would cause this to be manslaughter would be the accident of nature that causes either the illness or the defect that made the procedure necessary.

Swing and a miss, your logic still does not track, but hey nice try.

[Cochise]

I am going to be one of the lone partial dissenters. I don't favor partial term abortion except where the life of the mother is at stake. My problem with this ruling is that it does not take that into account and provide for that exception.

All I have ever heard on the radio were doctors saying that it's never really necessary, doctors with agendas may classify it that way but that the reality was that it's a choice procedure and it's never truly necessary.

[tiptap]

Straw man.

Meaning you think this is made up? I suggest you look at the recent AMA report indicating physicians often let their personal religious beliefs dictate their willinigness to explain patients options when they conflict with their personal belief. And yet they would call themselves professionals.

[BucEyedPea]

Meaning you think this is made up? I suggest you look at the recent AMA report indicating physicians often let their personal religious beliefs dictate their willinigness to explain patients options when they conflict with their personal belief. And yet they would call themselves professionals.
tiptap,
I don't think that's entirely fair to imply they're not professionals for this. You're implying that one must advocate options someone believes in their heart is a crime even make them an accomplice in a crime. Any professional has this right. A patient can always seek out other second or third opinions.

As for the life of the mother, I could agree with that. It's gonna be one or the other. ( depending on if it's really necessary.) But as a mother, I would want that to be a choice of mine. I would prefer to have my child live just as I would if there were a war and I had to face that choice.

[CRONUS]

All I have ever heard on the radio were doctors saying that it's never really necessary, doctors with agendas may classify it that way but that the reality was that it's a choice procedure and it's never truly necessary.

I have heard otherwise but have no facts. But I bet you would choose your wife over the fetus even in a partial term abortion situation if that was your choice. I could be wrong.

[memyselfI]

Swing and a miss, your logic still does not track, but hey nice try.

Nothing logical about 'murder' of a person that technically isn't even in existance yet.

[CRONUS]

tiptap,
I don't think that's entirely fair to imply they're not professionals for this. You're implying that one must advocate options someone believes in their heart is a crime even make them an accomplice in a crime. Any professional has this right. A patient can always seek out other second or third opinions.

As for the life of the mother, I could agree with that. It's gonna be one or the other. ( depending on if it's really necessary.) But as a mother, I would want that to be a choice of mine. I would prefer to have my child live just as I would if there were a war and I had to face that choice.

My problem with your belief BEP (if I am not on iggy) is that it assumes all women/girls are equally knowledgeable and would know they are not being told all their options.

[tiptap]

What I heard on NPR is that it does take into consideration the life of the
mmother but not the health.

Also at that point would not a caesarian be as effective and safer for both parties? mother but not the health.


Many times such events involve a 24 week fetus (usually less) whose genetic determination implies a bad outcome for the fetus. The small size of the fetus makes it difficult to retrieve the fetus by caesarian without the more drastic method of opening up the mother. It is much more safe to induce labor and to use the partial birth notion. Now it is true that Logical describes he only has notions of this when it involves the mothers health and the statement implies judgement of immenient harm. The cases I put forth are usually genetic defects that family wishes to terminate and the least harmful process for the woman is an induced labor. I admit that this isn't precieved as immenient danger to the health of the women.

[tiptap]

tiptap,
I don't think that's entirely fair to imply they're not professionals for this. You're implying that one must advocate options someone believes in their heart is a crime even make them an accomplice in a crime. Any professional has this right. A patient can always seek out other second or third opinions.

As for the life of the mother, I could agree with that. It's gonna be one or the other. ( depending on if it's really necessary.) But as a mother, I would want that to be a choice of mine. I would prefer to have my child live just as I would if there were a war and I had to face that choice.

Here is a case when a women is trusting of her choice of obstritician and that trust doesn't immediately disappear when a physician chooses to keep silent of all her options. I am completely at ease with a said physician reclusing themselves from being involved with those options but to withhold information so to leave a women with more drastic choices and now maybe illegal ones is totally unprofessional.

[BucEyedPea]

Here is a case when a women is trusting of her choice of obstritician and that trust doesn't immediately disappear when a physician chooses to keep silent of all her options. I am completely at ease with a said physician reclusing themselves from being involved with those options but to withhold information so to leave a women with more drastic choices and now maybe illegal ones is totally unprofessional.
Sorry. I say "Buyer Beware."

They don't have to forward the cause of others if they believe they are saving a human life who is half-born already. They owe no adult anything. They're not babysitters. They have just as much right to live by their codes as anyone else. You are stepping on their rights.

Frankly, doctors advocate stuff I wouldn't touch and they never tell me about more natural or safer options. It's no different here.

I seek out physicians who will work with my own, or what the the medical profession considers idiosyncratic belief in other forms of medicine—natural. When I get one that cops the I-Am-God-Arrogant viewpoint ( and I have had them)...I stop going. I also look into all my medical options including holistic. It's not the Doctor's moral, ethical, professional or legal responsibility or duty to actively advance something by offering an alternative he feels is morally degrading or wrong, even if some women or you disagree with that.

It's a free country.
One where govt's first duty is to protect human life.

[redbrian]

Nothing logical about 'murder' of a person that technically isn't even in existance yet.

For someone who claims an abhorrence of violence, you sure have a cavalier attitude to the fetus, I can think of nothing more violent to a human than a late term abortion.

This should create a good bit of spinning.

[Braincase]

I am one who believes that legally, once a fetus has reached a size that can allow for maintenance outside the womb, the child should be entitled to all the rights normally afforded humans (actually, religiously, I believe human rights begin at conception). If the smallest recorded human fetus that survives is a t nine ounces, than any child larger than nine ounces should not be aborted. Period.

[stevieray]

I wish conception was something that is revered, instead of abused.

[tiptap]

I am one who believes that legally, once a fetus has reached a size that can allow for maintenance outside the womb, the child should be entitled to all the rights normally afforded humans (actually, religiously, I believe human rights begin at conception). If the smallest recorded human fetus that survives is a t nine ounces, than any child larger than nine ounces should not be aborted. Period.

No baby can maintain on their own outside the womb. None. What you mean is that the viability is in play with some kind of help. The normal situation is breast feeding of the kid and normal parent activity. Is that with tubes and ventilation requirements even with the knowledge they will still die at age 1. Does that include viable fetus with their brain hanging on the outside of their scalp. Or their guts hanging out. How about those with the virus rotted swiss cheese brains. Automatic breathing functions are pretty basic and require little start up to maintain on very expensive ventilation and tube feeding procedures. It is all natural.

[tiptap]

Sorry. I say "Buyer Beware."

They don't have to forward the cause of others if they believe they are saving a human life who is half-born already. They owe no adult anything. They're not babysitters. They have just as much right to live by their codes as anyone else. You are stepping on their rights.

Frankly, doctors advocate stuff I wouldn't touch and they never tell me about more natural or safer options. It's no different here.

I seek out physicians who will work with my own, or what the the medical profession considers idiosyncratic belief in other forms of medicine—natural. When I get one that cops the I-Am-God-Arrogant viewpoint ( and I have had them)...I stop going. I also look into all my medical options including holistic. It's not the Doctor's moral, ethical, professional or legal responsibility or duty to actively advance something by offering an alternative he feels is morally degrading or wrong, even if some women or you disagree with that.

It's a free country.
One where govt's first duty is to protect human life.

Well don't give me you pitch about Economics because they are only possible when the the buyer has all the information in order to make an informed choice. If you mean to live by buyer beware than you are advocating restricted information about the unit of exchange. You are advocating deciet and basically insisting upon survival of the fittest mentality.

[mlyonsd]

Good for the SC.

I think eventually recognizing a fetus as a human being is inevitable as medical procedures advance. As it should be.

[BucEyedPea]

Well don't give me you pitch about Economics because they are only possible when the the buyer has all the information in order to make an informed choice. If you mean to live by buyer beware than you are advocating restricted information about the unit of exchange. You are advocating deciet and basically insisting upon survival of the fittest mentality.
That's reaching. It's not even morally equivalent to put saving a half-born human's life on a part with getting better hubcaps someplace else. And it's not like someone's committing fraud here either.

No one has perfect information anyways.So when we invite govt in to make our decisions, it doesn't have perfect information either.In fact it has less because a bureaucracy can't possibly know about all the choices out there nor what choices each individual makes. No gets all the information but there is an abundance out there if one takes responsibility to seek it. Sometimes time and convenience mean more to those than to chase around the best price or options.

[tiptap]

We are talking about normal range of instruction at all most all medical training facilities. And they chose to withhold information because of their religious beliefs. It isn't professional. It is negligent and maybe even medically negligent. That is the legal consideration.

[tiptap]

And as homeopathic medicine becomes part of regular medical training it too should be a part of informed response from medical providers.

[BucEyedPea]

We are talking about normal range of instruction at all most all medical training facilities. And they chose to withhold information because of their religious beliefs. It isn't professional. It is negligent and maybe even medically neglicgent. That is the legal consideration.
So you feel you can speak for every medical person and claim it's religious?
I know athiests that are pro-life and not just against pba. It's not always true.

Those making this claim are basing their decisions on their own "personal" beliefs or moral code as well. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it's based on humanism, atheism, any other secular system or spiritual system or even Nazi eugenics ( performed by physicians as well) where those who aren't perfect, or have some defect, are slow or feeble-minded, retarded or gay should be allowed the gift of life.

Would you shoot a toddler paraplegic, because her/his life has less quality?

[SBK]

Meaning you think this is made up? I suggest you look at the recent AMA report indicating physicians often let their personal religious beliefs dictate their willinigness to explain patients options when they conflict with their personal belief. And yet they would call themselves professionals.

What about the doctors that don't give a patient options because they're more interested in the money they'll receive than the well being of their client.....:hmmm:

[BucEyedPea]

And as homeopathic medicine becomes part of regular medical training it too should be a part of informed response from medical providers.
That's up to the medical consumer. As it becomes more common, the allopaths will catch on. In fact, it already has to some degree. They're called "Wellness Clinics" staffed with chiros, nutritionists, naturopaths and medical doctors.

[BucEyedPea]

No baby can maintain on their own outside the womb. None. What you mean is that the viability is in play with some kind of help.
Neither can a one year old. They need an adult until age 18, some longer some less. No one's demanding it be given any other rights but to grow, and develop.
Thats what right to life means. It's not a right to vote or make other decisions. It's just a right to be left alone and not be harmed by others stronger than itself.

[tiptap]

So you feel you can speak for every medical person and claim it's religious?
I know athiests that are pro-life and not just against pba. It's not always true.

Those making this claim are basing their decisions on their own "personal" beliefs or moral code as well. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it's based on humanism, atheism, any other secular system or spiritual system or even Nazi eugenics ( performed by physicians as well) where those who aren't perfect, or have some defect, are slow or feeble-minded, retarded or gay should be allowed the gift of life.

Would you shoot a toddler paraplegic, because her/his life has less quality?

I concede that the moral position of any individual physician doesn't necessarily lie with a specific religious position even to that of atheism. That doesn't change the fact that is a licensed profession (one is which the title should represent some minimum of understanding and knowledge) the professional is under legal obligation to present all the facts and option to the best of their knowledge and to do less because of one's own beliefs, even atheistic, is unprofessional at the least.
This is a relevant concern presently within the Medical Community. But this is the last I will concern myself with it on this thread as it is to be about the SC decision on late term partial birth abortions.
And on that situation I also think I will stop because my personal position on this is to minimize abortions as well. I don't think this is the best medical decision and I don't think it will affect number of abortions so I will wait to see how the court extends or not this decision.

[Braincase]

No baby can maintain on their own outside the womb. None. What you mean is that the viability is in play with some kind of help. The normal situation is breast feeding of the kid and normal parent activity. Is that with tubes and ventilation requirements even with the knowledge they will still die at age 1. Does that include viable fetus with their brain hanging on the outside of their scalp. Or their guts hanging out. How about those with the virus rotted swiss cheese brains. Automatic breathing functions are pretty basic and require little start up to maintain on very expensive ventilation and tube feeding procedures. It is all natural.

Generally speaking, I believe in what I say, where the smalest surviving fetus defines the line. You bring up rare cases. Who's to say that those with virus rotted brains can't lead meaningful lives and end up posting on bulletin boards.

[Amnorix]

Oh if only this SC would reverse Roe v. Wade by next November so that the Democrats would cruise to victory in the primaries. That'd be nice. :D

[Adept Havelock]

Oh if only this SC would reverse Roe v. Wade by next November so that the Democrats would cruise to victory in the primaries. That'd be nice. :D


Huh?

How can the Democrats not cruise to victory in the primaries? They are Democratic primaries, right? :p

[memyselfI]

For someone who claims an abhorrence of violence, you sure have a cavalier attitude to the fetus, I can think of nothing more violent to a human than a late term abortion.

This should create a good bit of spinning.

Oh, I can. Shooting someone point blank in the head comes to mind.

But you are forgetting, I'm for this ban. I'm not indifferent to the fetus. I just don't consider it to be a human being until it can function as one without a womb.

[memyselfI]

Huh?

How can the Democrats not cruise to victory in the primaries? They are Democratic primaries, right? :p

Oh, if there is a way the incompentent boob Dems will find it. :p

[|Zach|]

Sounds like a good decision.