Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Good-Bye, RU-486 (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Good-Bye, RU-486
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
I would like to point out that some of the partial birth abortion bans have been overturned, not because of being vague, but because they don't include caveats for the health of the mother. I don't know what the science is on that procedure, so I won't comment on the differences in findings for court cases and what the congress is seeing. But, it seems to me, that if you want to garuntee passage, its easy to include a "for the health of the mother."

That silly congress forgot about the 28th amendment again, i mean, who could forget the courts have veto power?

The court doesn't get to decide nuances like that, it's up to the legislative branch and the executive branch. If you have two near identical bills, one with an exception for the health of the mother, and another that doesn't, there is no way one is constitutional when the second is not.

You're talking about courts overstepping their bounds here, and I don't understand how you can justify it.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would support a complete childbirth ban, or at least a licensing.
Heh. I know you probably don't mean it, but you just said you support outlawing people from reproducing without a license. [Smile]
Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Going out on a limb here, but the health of the mother is NOT a nuance.

"You may not undergo this medical procedure."
vs.
"You may not undergo this medical procedure, unless going without will damage you beyond repair" (my wording)

There are similar laws already on the books - killing in self-defense comes to mind...

<edit> Tez, I believe that was the joke...

[ November 19, 2004, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
towellman
Member
Member # 1462

 - posted      Profile for towellman   Email towellman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Re: Partial Birth Abortions. "How many of these procedures are performed per year?"

They make up 1-2% of the 1.6 million annual abortions in the US. So about 16-32,000.

RE; Compromise. "As a pro-lifer, I would gladly add "health of the mother" clauses and even throw in the incest and rape clauses if that meant abortion was illegal. These cases make up a very, very small percentage of abortions (about 1% if memory serves).

Would you support abortion bans with those exceptions only?"

"On "partial birth" abortions? Absolutely. And on any third trimester abortion, with those qualifications."

How many of you that support abortion or oppose it would be willing to compromise at no abortions past 14 weeks, except in cases of rape(must be reported to police), incest(same), or health of the mother (defined as death or enough to qualify for federal disability)?

Fourteen weeks covers at least 3 menstrual periods so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I think a working compromise determined by the people instead of the courts would go along way too soothing the issue.

Re: RU486...much longer than just the morning after recommended up to 7 weeks after conception and effective up to 12 I think. I find it appropriate that it the would-be mother that actually puts it in her own mouth. Full responsibility, no one else directly involved.

[ November 20, 2004, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: towellman ]

Posts: 220 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shane Roe
Member
Member # 1542

 - posted      Profile for Shane Roe   Email Shane Roe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


And since the death toll from natural live births for the mother is higher than that for the use of RU486 and abortions in general, and since this really clearly is all about protecting women, perhaps we need to ban childbirth altogether. [/QB]

Are you figuring in the death toll of potential mothers who were aborted? [Razz]
Posts: 565 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tjthetek
Member
Member # 1946

 - posted      Profile for tjthetek   Email tjthetek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the first place Shane, that doesn't matter if we are talking about potential mothers who were aborted because society does very little to protect children once they are born. I am pro-choice with a hell bent toward prolife. As a foster parent however, I know we as a society have done little to protect the lives of people fully formed.

It seems awefully suspicious for people to sit around and talk about embryos and zygotes when there are full formed children out there suffering and suffering. To me you all sound like a bunch of hypocrates, If you are prolife, go out there and prove it. Put yourselves on the line, emotionally, financially and physically. Take in a couple of unwanteds. Then talk me about abortion.

Otheriwse this discussion of abortion sounds like an academic excercise.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oyarsa
Member
Member # 1871

 - posted      Profile for Oyarsa   Email Oyarsa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact that fully formed children are suffering does not make the murder of almost-formed, or completely-formed-just-not-fully-born children any less horrendous.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It seems awefully suspicious for people to sit around and talk about embryos and zygotes when there are full formed children out there suffering and suffering. To me you all sound like a bunch of hypocrates, If you are prolife, go out there and prove it. Put yourselves on the line, emotionally, financially and physically. Take in a couple of unwanteds. Then talk me about abortion.
It seems awfully suspicious for people to sit around and talk about women's right to choose abortions when there are women out there that can't even get birth control, who are raped, sold into sexual slavery, or forced to abort at the will of the state. One might say you all sound like a bunch of hypocrites, If you are prochoice, go out there and prove it. Put yourselves on the line, emotionally, financially and physically. Picket the slave brothels within a few miles of your house. If you don't know where they are, then open your freaking phone book to "Massage" and look for any place that advertises "Asian Masseuses." Go confront the organized crime units that threaten these women with death and mutilation in order to get their obedience. Then talk me about womens choices.

-Pete, who is pro-choice, but also very anti-bad logic

[ November 20, 2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anti-bad logic?

Sounds a lot like "It's hypocritical to invade Iraq unless we're going to topple all the worlds Dictators and rebuild all the nations they've ruined."

You might as well say workers have no right to strike against unsafe working conditions until they have aleviated the problems of everyone who has worse working conditions than they do.

Pete, you obsess a bit. Sex-slavery is a world wide problem, and millions of people (not just women) are victamized by it. The vast majority of those who prostitute themselves are forced to do so (with a very small percentage of those engaging in it because it is simply more lucrative than hard work).

It's something we need to talk about. It's something we need to try to act against. It is not, however, really very relevant to a debate about abortion.

Unless, of course, you agree with those who say it was wrong to eliminate Saddam unless we were ready to take out every horrific dictator.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Going out on a limb here, but the health of the mother is NOT a nuance.

"You may not undergo this medical procedure."
vs.
"You may not undergo this medical procedure, unless going without will damage you beyond repair" (my wording)

There are similar laws already on the books - killing in self-defense comes to mind...

<edit> Tez, I believe that was the joke...

Then it's up to the congress to change it, or the president to veto it. The court does not have veto power, and that's what they're using here. There is nothing about that clause "unless going without will damage you beyond repair" that would change the constitutionality of the law.

As a side note, I think the exception should be included. But that doesn't change the fact that the courts are wrong.

edit: hay name buddy [Cool]

[ November 21, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shane Roe
Member
Member # 1542

 - posted      Profile for Shane Roe   Email Shane Roe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tjthetek:
In the first place Shane, that doesn't matter if we are talking about potential mothers who were aborted because society does very little to protect children once they are born. I am pro-choice with a hell bent toward prolife. As a foster parent however, I know we as a society have done little to protect the lives of people fully formed.

It seems awefully suspicious for people to sit around and talk about embryos and zygotes when there are full formed children out there suffering and suffering. To me you all sound like a bunch of hypocrates, If you are prolife, go out there and prove it. Put yourselves on the line, emotionally, financially and physically. Take in a couple of unwanteds. Then talk me about abortion.

Otheriwse this discussion of abortion sounds like an academic excercise.

So, only those who adopt foster children have any kind of credibility in discussing this topic? Is that what you're saying?
Now I'll tell you something--there are waiting lists for people who want to adopt. Of course, most of the potential parents want babies, not older children. It's a sad fact of life that a child who has been raised by a drug abuser (or some other situation such as abuse etc.) can't get the help he or she needs--sadly, it's mostly the fault of the deviant parent.

Shane

Posts: 565 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem, towellman, is that some women (more than a negligible few) have irregular periods. A woman I know sometimes goes months at a time without having one.

I think I'd be willing to accept a ban on third trimester abortions, of course with exemptions for rape, incest, and health. I can accept you definition of health (death and federal disability). However, I would add one extra stipulation: You want a woman to carry to term a child she doesn't want? Provide adopting parents. In advance.

Speaking of which - we've established that there are 1.3 million abortions a year. Are there as many applications for adoption every year?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"The problem, towellman, is that some women (more than a negligible few) have irregular periods. A woman I know sometimes goes months at a time without having one."
So do women always like to talk to you about their periods?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some women talk about their periods, some women don't. Even without talking, I knew the cycles of every single woman that I dated for more than a couple of months. I also knew my sister's and mother's when I lived with them.

I could, if I paid attention, figure out the cycles of most of the women I work with. What's your point?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joshua - what, are we related? [Wink]

At any rate, that's not veto power - that's identifying when specific rights are being infringed. So yes, there is something in that clause that changes the constitutionality of the law. Without the clause, a woman's body no longer belongs to her, but the state.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FIJC - LOL.
Donald, I think she was just joking.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But women always talk to me about their periods! (ok, I see it now... ) [Embarrassed]
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
At any rate, that's not veto power - that's identifying when specific rights are being infringed. So yes, there is something in that clause that changes the constitutionality of the law. Without the clause, a woman's body no longer belongs to her, but the state.

If thats the case, then by allowing the baby to be killed, you were saying that the baby's body no longer belongs to the baby, but to the state (or the mother).

But, I'm wasn't making any argument with what you said. I was addressing this idea specifically:

everard said:
quote:
I would like to point out that some of the partial birth abortion bans have been overturned, not because of being vague, but because they don't include caveats for the health of the mother. I don't know what the science is on that procedure, so I won't comment on the differences in findings for court cases and what the congress is seeing. But, it seems to me, that if you want to garuntee passage, its easy to include a "for the health of the mother.
The idea that adding the clause, "unless the mothers health is at risk", somehow magically changes the constitutionality of a law is baffling to me.

I do not intend to argue whether or not banning partial birth abortion is constitutional, I'm arguing that just that adding (or ommiting) that clause cannot change the constititionality, and therefore the courts have no jurisdiction.

quote:
it seems to me, that if you want to garuntee passage, its easy to include a "for the health of the mother.
Everard makes that mistake here. The Bill has already been passed. It is the will of the people. If the court finds that it is unconstitutional, they can overthrow it. Otherwise, they have no choice but to leave it alone.

It seems to me that a great deal of people don't make this distinction, and it is a distinction that is very important to make. Without it, we might as well get rid of the legislative branch, and subject ourselves to the will of the apointed courts.

No, I'm not being melodramatic. The courts do not have veto power. Allowing them to use it threatens the stabilty of our government.

[ November 23, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You want a woman to carry to term a child she doesn't want? Provide adopting parents. In advance.
Bad idea, because often the mother decides she wants to keep the baby after all, and that can be emotionally devastating to the prospective parents. A better idea would be that the prospective mother be put in contact with someone who maintains a list of prospective parents, so someone's in a position to take charge of the baby immediately after birth without getting prospective parents' hopes up.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't that what the courts said - that it's unconstitutional because it failed to take the mother's basic right into account? Perhaps you don't agree with the court's interpretation of the constitution, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have one.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fine, doug, I don't care about the mechanics at the moment, but make sure there's somebody ready to adopt the kid.

I repeat my question: Are there 1.3 prospective adoptive parents each and every year?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Isn't that what the courts said - that it's unconstitutional because it failed to take the mother's basic right into account? Perhaps you don't agree with the court's interpretation of the constitution, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

Which constitutionally protected rights did they site?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"FIJC - LOL.
Donald, I think she was just joking."

Of course I was joking, LOL. Believe it or not, I do like giving Ricky a hard time, but that is solely due to my fondness for him. [Wink]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joshua - I don't know. I don't remember the rulings by heart, but I would assume that somewhere in the constitution one could find protection against being barred from a medical procedure necessary for your life or health.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RickyB: The problem with that occurs when the child is also cosidered alive. Are we aloud to kill one person to save the life of another?

I don't want to argue whether or not the child is alive at that point. But the majority, through the congress, seems to have declared that it is. If that's the case, I don't see how the courts can rule this law uncostitutional based on that inclusion or exclusion of that clause.

I'd like to read the judges reasoning, because I may be wrong. Does anyone have a link?

edit: forgot some words. [Wink]

[ November 24, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are we allowed to deliver the child, thereby killing the mother? I agree, let's read the ruling and see.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Are we allowed to deliver the child, thereby killing the mother? I agree, let's read the ruling and see.

If that's the question (which I doubt it is), I say you deliver the child. The mother made some descisions that got her to that point, while the child made none. Therefore, the mother should be the one to pay any consequences. And is it ever a guaranteed thing the mother will die?

There's a word I'm looking for so I can google this, it's what the judge writes when he makes a ruling.

"I read the Judges _________, he clearly was correct in deciding this law was unconstitutional".

Anyone?

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Liberty Council - pro-life site

Northern District of California Ruling (PDF)

New York Ruling(PDF)

There was also a Nebraska ruling, but the link didn't work.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, from what I can tell, and I ain't no law student, the court is not invoking constitutional arguments but precedents - namely, the case known as Roe (v Wade, I assume), Casey and Stenberg.

[ November 24, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1