Senate Passes Bill Limiting Abortion - Page 4

MichaeltheGreat · March 17, 2003, 23:24

Thanks for bumping the thread. Mom and baby girl are fine.

I'll reply on the other post later tonight after I do some work stuff.

Sava · March 17, 2003, 23:39

I'm not sure this will add to the discussion, but IMO, nobody has a "right" to life. Billions of years of evolution have proved that life is about survival. Sure, abortions aren't good things, but they are necessary for some people to survive. My mom had an abortion shortly after Roe V Wade. Her and my dad recently were married, she was in school, he worked full time, and they simply could not support a family. Now she had two choices, get an abortion; or have the kid and become a welfare collecting family. My dad had a stroke in 1986, and my mom has been the main income earner for the family. Even with her job (she's a director level VP for a medical company), we've been struggling to survive, monetarily. I find it a little hypocritical that many Pro-Life people are against abortions, but also against welfare programs that help people that choose to have children instead of working or getting an education.

I'll make a deal with you Pro-Lifers... I'll agree to no-abortions (except rape, incest, medical necessity) if you guys agree to the creation of universal health care, education, and subsidized housing (for people who need it). It seems as if many Pro-Lifers' care for Life stops at birth.

Ben Kenobi · March 17, 2003, 23:54

Quote:

I'll make a deal with you Pro-Lifers... I'll agree to no-abortions (except rape, incest, medical necessity) if you guys agree to the creation of universal health care, education, and subsidized housing (for people who need it). It seems as if many Pro-Lifers' care for Life stops at birth.

Sava:

Define medical necessity.

Why do you have exceptions for rape & incest?

We have to straighten these things out first before we can make a deal.

"creation of universal health care, education, and subsidized housing."

These are all good things to support. I'm of the type that if you are going to take away abortion, you have to do all you can to help women keep their children. Sadly, we have no incentive as a society to deal with these problems so long as we have the band-aid of abortion.

Quote:

My mom had an abortion shortly after Roe V Wade.

That could have been you, Sava. Be thankful.

Sava · March 18, 2003, 00:00

Who says it wasn't me...

and if it was, I wouldn't have known about it anyways, so who cares?

obiwan, it's just flat out wrong to force a woman to have the child of a rapist, or to give birth to an incest-child. I would also include abortion for high-risk pregnancies. My grandmother knew a woman who had an abortion because the child showed severe deformations during the mid-trimesters. There's no way a child like that could have a chance to live a normal life. Why make a child suffer just because of some self-righteous belief in a "right" to life? If God does exist (and I don't believe for sure God does or doesn't) surely he gave us minds to understand how life is about survival, and no living thing is entitled to it.

And if you do believe in God, and heaven and such, who says that those unborn souls aren't being taken care of by God or given another chance at life somewhere else?

Ben Kenobi · March 18, 2003, 00:13

Quote:

Why make a child suffer just because of some self-righteous belief in a "right" to life?

Just to clarify. We are talking about legal personhood, as defined in the US. One of the rights guaranteed by personhood is the right to life, and applies at this point to all born people.

Deformations:

Quote:

There's no way a child like that could have a chance to live a normal life.

Some can be corrected or improved with plastic surgery. However, that still leaves a question. How do you define what a 'normal' life entails?

[/Quote]
I would also include abortion for high-risk pregnancies. [/Quote]

If you mean a pregnancy posing substantial risk to the life of the mother, then I agree with you.

In this situation, it is better to save the life of the mother, then to lose both the mother and child.

Quote:

it's just flat out wrong to force a woman to have the child of a rapist, or to give birth to an incest-child.

Why? What is different about rape or incest from other pregnancies? Is the child less of a person when he or she is conceived through rape?

OzzyKP · March 18, 2003, 00:25

What precisely is a partial birth abortion?

I've heard different things. Is it really the killing of the baby during labor? Like its half coming out and the doctor sticks a knife through its skull?

Ben Kenobi · March 18, 2003, 00:33

Ozzykp:

Try this for a start.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/literat...ure_9313pb.asp

Includes testimony given to congress in 1995.

"With forceps, the doctor turns the baby around in the womb to be positioned feet first. The baby’s legs are pulled out into the birth canal. The baby is alive at this point. "

"The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head, which remains inside the birth canal. The baby’s hands and feet move."

"The abortionist stabs the scissors into the base of the baby’s skull. The scissors are spread to enlarge the opening. The suction catheter is then inserted and the brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The head slides out easily."

OzzyKP · March 18, 2003, 00:51

So they typically happen around the 6 month mark?

Ben Kenobi · March 18, 2003, 01:11

For the most part, but they can be done anytime up to full-term.

Imran Siddiqui · March 18, 2003, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Heart of Atlanta is a pretty clear IC case - even though the specific hotel wasn't commonly used in interstate commerce, it certainly didn't check people for state of origin, and metropolitan area room vacancy rates are a driving force in room pricing. Since most hotels clearly are part of interstate commerce as a component of interstate movement and transportation, (now much more than in 1972), it would be very hard to distinguish "intrastate" hotels from "interstate" hotels in a consistent way.

Wickard is another huge reach in Federal regulatory power, and smells of too much vodka to boot

, so I agree with you there.

Missed this, sorry!

The problem with Heart of Atlanta is that it CAN be expanded and generally was until Lopez stopped it in its tracks. Right now there is still the expansive IC cases on the books (they haven't been overturned, just distinguished). The court really hasn't touched Congress' regulation of any business since the New Deal years (Wickard), so I believe they'd say Congress could ban late term abortions (as long as the ban is specified to be after viability and has a provision for the life of the mother).

To rule that this is an overextension of Congress' powers would overrule, at the very least, Wickard and every case relying upon it. As seen in Planned Parenthood, the court really doesn't like shaking things up THAT much.