Federal Judge Blocks Federal Interference in Individual Rights.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Keep your Flame-throwers holstered dear members.

Just one small victory for the freedom of choice and everybodies right to choose whether to have or have not an abortion.

DOOOG still remembers coathanger abotions and richer people flying to foreign lands.

Nobody legally forces anyone to have an abortion , so why force someone not to.

NEWS

MegalosSkylaki

IN THE NO FLAMETHROWER ZONE

[alivin]

This kind or abortion was so rare that it was almost a none issue, other than a small chip in the wall of personal freedoms that is under attack from so many different directions.It was also a legal issue that I pay legal people to interpretate and adjudicate for me as just happened.

[surreal]

How rare is it?

[Mr. Goodbytes]

Ahhh, but once we (hopefully) have Roe v. Wade overturned or altered, we won't have California Federal judges citing some mythical connection to a person's right to privacy and abortion "rights." And as repulsive as abortion is, partial-birth is the most horrible of all the methods; it should have never been allowed in the first place.

[Chuckiechan]

I guess the question is whether the fetus is considered an "individual".

I say it is. Some say it is just a lump of flesh to be excised like a pimple.

[izaic3]

"She agreed with abortion rights activists that a woman's right to choose is paramount, and that it is therefore "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain, as abortion foes contend."

"During the procedure, the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed."

this is what happens and people just call it a choice, or just some living cells. It's your own child! what happens if someone goes out, and kills someone's two year old daughter? life in jail (at least usually). What happens if a father murders a two month old child? They get punished. But oh no, this must be much different. It's not the father or some stranger killing it, it's the mother, and the doctor. It's her choice whether or not she will have the baby, or end a life. It's only crushing a baby's skull, what's wrong with that?

edit: would it be irrelevant whether you suffered pain if your skull was punctured or crushed?

[surreal]

Quote:

She agreed with abortion rights activists that a woman's right to choose is paramount, and that it is therefore "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain,

"irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain, a woman's right to choose is paramount.
OK I can see that. After all, the woman didn't get to choose to use contraceptives.
The woman didn't get to choose to have an early abortion.
She should get to choose and let the consequences be damned some time in her life!

Hmm sounds like they just sorta pull it out enough to get a grip on it, then put it's head in something that is probably like a stainless steel nutcracker ya think?

Quote:

During the procedure, the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Quote:

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee voted to restrict late-term abortions when the measure contained a "clear exception for life or health of women."

"However, George Bush pushed through a different piece of legislation that failed to protect the health of women and that is what the court struck down today," she said. "When John Kerry is president he will appoint judges that are committed to upholding the Constitution, not pursuing an ideological agenda."

What we have here --sadly --is the politicalization of the womb.

Personally, I would regard such procedures --like most people here I think --as grotesque.

Indeed, I have very deep moral qualms as to any abortions that have become an alternative to birth control --or worse, THE method of birth control, when there are obviously others.

Also abortions --at any stage --are a danger to woman's health and often a psychological trauma to both the man and woman.

I am not advocating its usage.

But the problem here --by passing Federal Laws --and one wonders what happened to the Constitutional "police powers of the States" along the way, is a chip away from the right to chose what one does with ones own body.

Does anyone really believe that once one restrictive law passes Judicial muster, another won.'t shortly follow --one even more restructive ?.

As the article said, such a procedure is a relative rarity, but in its very grotesqueness will surely be used by opponants of a woman's right to choose.

However, and if accurate and this accuracy is to my thinking not as yet known, the Federal Law struck down does not allow for exemptions when a woman's health is in jeopardy.

Ah ! Banning such a medically grotesque proceure seems like the humane thing to do, and I'm sure its advocates traded on that. But we can argue till Kingdom Come hwen human life begins, and a cognizable argument can even be advanced that it begins at the momentof conception.

But look closely behind the emotion-inducing rhetoric: What exactly is at stake here ?

In NYC we used to have Free tuition at the City University. Then a "shadow tuition" of a mere $200 --which would be picked up by the State for those who cannot pay --was passed. Only a "shadow."

Ah! but how SHADOWS have a way of lenghthening! Any guesses as to what that "shadow tuition" at the City University is nowadays and how much is picked up by the State?

Once a seemingly benign law by the Fedeal Gov't banning late-term abotions --putatively regardless of the woman's health passes muster in Federal Court, why not continue the politicalization of the womb to mid-late abotions? Early-mid-late abotions? Early abotions. Abortions, period?

The decision knocks down an intrusive Federal law --and it does it clearly and importantly early in this political process.

Nobody is forced to have an abortion.
I would take that even further: Nobody should be forced to pay for somebody else's abortion -- at ANY stage.

Freedom of choice is a two-way street.

Ban government-paid i.e. taxpayer being forced to pay for anybody's abortion at any stage.

Abortion rights advocates should put their money where their mouth is, and its opponants should stay out ofanother person's womb.

MegalosSkylaki
FROM THE FLAMEFREE ZONE

[MegalosSkylaki]

I appreciate it that everybody has chosen to stick to the issues and not stick it to any other member. Let's keep that up, folks.

[surreal]

I know where you're coming from doog. I do. One can not look at one side with out the other. If I had time to look deeper into it today I was going to, the phrasing of the health jeopardy bit bothered me.
Women are going to have abortions, the cat's out of the bag and will never be put back in anymore than the government could bring back prohibition.
But I just don't buy the argument that if you allow it all the atrocities that can be imagined are allowed also. Remember this stuff has been thought up in the last 30 years....
Maybe I'm naive? But there must be someone to have consideration for the baby.

Babies are also circumcised with out anathesia... People used to say they didn't need it because they didn't feel pain so early. Anyone that thinks they aren't feeling terrible pain should take a trip through the area when it's taking place..
They do feel terrible pain.

No flames accepted.