http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040826/ts_nm/rights_abortion_dc
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge ruled on Thursday that the government's ban on a procedure opponents call partial birth abortion was unconstitutional because it failed to provide an exception to protect a mother's health.
Ashcroft was heard to ask "You mean we can't force a woman to die to give birth to a child? This place is going to Hell in a handbasket, next those dumb ******* will want to be able to vote or something! What's that? Aw, Christ, when did that happen?"
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Strike two for Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Strike two for Partial Birth Abortion BanFollow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Maybe they could make a little 3rd trimester sized electric chair, that way the pubs wouldn't have a problem with the procedure.
Blech, I'm pro choice, but I'm still un-easy about partial birth abortion, only because crushing an infants head in is just a tad ****** up.
But haha, one for us pro-choice ppls =D
But haha, one for us pro-choice ppls =D
I don't think it's the government's place to regulate who kills who. Only the circumstances under which the murder happens. In the case of partial-birth abortions, this is in a controlled environment, so I think it's perfectly ok.
Assisted suicied. Definitely needs to be legal everywhere. Not a thing wrong with it.
I think we just need to go the rest of the way with this:
TV shows.
Damn Survivor! Let's have the 'real deal.' I want to see people killing each other off for the million dollar prize. There's some ratings for ya.
Assisted suicied. Definitely needs to be legal everywhere. Not a thing wrong with it.
I think we just need to go the rest of the way with this:
TV shows.
Damn Survivor! Let's have the 'real deal.' I want to see people killing each other off for the million dollar prize. There's some ratings for ya.
Partial birth abortions are a sin...You do understand the fetus is fully formed and they suck the brains out of the kid don't you?
Stephns wrote:
What kind of nonesense is this? You don't think it's the governments place to regulate who kills who...what the hell's that supposed to mean? So as long as it's controlled and gives you that scientificy tingly feeling killing babies is ok? You guys are truly disgusting and God will judge us all know that.
Varus
Stephns wrote:
Quote:
I don't think it's the government's place to regulate who kills who. Only the circumstances under which the murder happens. In the case of partial-birth abortions, this is in a controlled environment, so I think it's perfectly ok.
What kind of nonesense is this? You don't think it's the governments place to regulate who kills who...what the hell's that supposed to mean? So as long as it's controlled and gives you that scientificy tingly feeling killing babies is ok? You guys are truly disgusting and God will judge us all know that.
Varus
This is how an attorney friend explained it to me:
Obviously no one, with the possible exception of Ashcroft, is comfortable with forcing a woman to give birth at the risk of her own life. So Congress in their wisdom declared that issue irrelevant. The court overturned that decree, saying in effect "we can't know that, and we can't presume".
Quote:
The legal issue is actually kind of interesting; as you know, the Supreme Court originally ruled that any partial-birth abortion law has to have an exception for the health of the mother. Congress didn't like that, so they held a bunch of hearings, and passed the new law which contained an explicit finding that "partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect the health of the mother."
Well, is it? I'm sure I have no idea, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. A number of doctors and medical organizations told Congress that the procedure is never necessary; a number of doctors and medical organizations said the exact opposite. What the court ruled today is that where you have a reasonable difference in medical opinion, Congress isn't allowed to simply ignore that and make a legislative finding that gray is white. Cleverly, the court found a good quote to use:
"We know of no support... for the proposition that if the constitutionality of a statute depends in part on the existence of certain facts, a court may not review a legislature's judgment that the facts exist. If a legislature could make a statute constitutional simply by 'finding' that black is white or freedom, slavery, judicial review would be an elaborate farce. At least since Marbury v. Madison... that has not been the law."
Who, you might ask, is the liberal judge who uttered these words in a shocking display of judicial activism? Clarence Thomas...
Well, is it? I'm sure I have no idea, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. A number of doctors and medical organizations told Congress that the procedure is never necessary; a number of doctors and medical organizations said the exact opposite. What the court ruled today is that where you have a reasonable difference in medical opinion, Congress isn't allowed to simply ignore that and make a legislative finding that gray is white. Cleverly, the court found a good quote to use:
"We know of no support... for the proposition that if the constitutionality of a statute depends in part on the existence of certain facts, a court may not review a legislature's judgment that the facts exist. If a legislature could make a statute constitutional simply by 'finding' that black is white or freedom, slavery, judicial review would be an elaborate farce. At least since Marbury v. Madison... that has not been the law."
Who, you might ask, is the liberal judge who uttered these words in a shocking display of judicial activism? Clarence Thomas...
Obviously no one, with the possible exception of Ashcroft, is comfortable with forcing a woman to give birth at the risk of her own life. So Congress in their wisdom declared that issue irrelevant. The court overturned that decree, saying in effect "we can't know that, and we can't presume".
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Partial birth abortions are a sin...You do understand the fetus is fully formed and they suck the brains out of the kid don't you?
I understand that the fetus is fully formed. I don't care whether you think it's a sin or not. Keep your religion out of my laws.
Quote:
What kind of nonesense is this? You don't think it's the governments place to regulate who kills who...what the hell's that supposed to mean? So as long as it's controlled and gives you that scientificy tingly feeling killing babies is ok? You guys are truly disgusting and God will judge us all know that.
It's called an opinion. You should try having one sometime instead of regurgitated crap. At least my crap is mine.
It's supposed to mean that I don't give a squat about the morality of death at the hands of another human being. That's a commonplace event that has happened throughout history and the only way the goverment should be involved is to make sure that the circumstances surrounding a death at the hands of another human being are humane or at least acceptable to the person being killed.
In other words, the goverment shouldn't decide whether it's ok or not, just ensure that if it is going to happen then everyone involved knows what they're up against.
Tired of your neighbor? Challenge him to a legally sanctioned fight to the death.
Don't want that kid? Stick a shopvac to the soft spot as soon as you can see it.
Want to be rid of alimony? Take out a contract with one of our professional and courteous euthanasiasts.
Tired of your boss? Let him know how you really feel with these deadly microbes in his coffee. USDA approved.
a biritsh member of the european parliment last month said that any employer would be stupid to employ a woman who is still able to have children, or something along those lines.
Quote:
Obviously no one, with the possible exception of Ashcroft, is comfortable with forcing a woman to give birth at the risk of her own life
In my opinion, those who feel justified in forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy are not concerned with the mother's health, mental or physical. The fact that the "partial-birth" abortion ban passed without an exception for cases of risk to the mother's life would seem to support that.
Stephns wrote:
baby killer
Varus
Quote:
I understand that the fetus is fully formed. I don't care whether you think it's a sin or not. Keep your religion out of my laws.
baby killer
Varus
Quote:
In my opinion, those who feel justified in forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy are not concerned with the mother's health, mental or physical. The fact that the "partial-birth" abortion ban passed without an exception for cases of risk to the mother's life would seem to support that.
That's what it boils down to. When talking about late term, partial birth abortions we are referring to children as growths with no more right to life than a cancerous tumor. I find it rather amusing that federal law defines an embrio as life for the purpose of criminal prosecution with regards to violent crime, yet if a woman decides after the child has become viable she no longer has any interest in this child that happens to still be inside, she is perfectly justified in ending its life. The "going through with an unwanted pregnancy" argument is what really gets me. If you allow an unwanted pregnancy to go to the point of viability, it should no longer be about you. Before that, I honestly don't care what you do. But that there is even discussion on the legality of deliberately ending the life of a child that can survive outside the womb is indicative of the narcissistic vein that our society is rife with.
Moebius wrote:
A fully viable child is an appropriate sacrifice to secure the health of the mother? So her life is worth more than that of the infant in her womb?
Quote:
In case my opinion wasn't clear, the answer to your question is yes, absolutely.
In case it wasn't clear, the questions were rhetorical. It's good to know liberals place so little value in human life. Especially the liberals with vaginas that don't want anyone to expect them to be accountable human beings with responsibilities and consequences to accept for their actions.
Maybe if conservatives with di[b][/b]cks took some responsibility for their fertility and not rely 100% on some little pill us ******'s have to take everyday we also wouldn't have this problem.
Hey now, Moe. I'm a liberal with a ****** and I agree, at least in part, with what you are saying. If a woman makes the choice to carry her fetus to late term, she has then, in my opinion, put herself in the position where abortion is no longer an option. I think if the fetus is past the point of medical viability, the woman should have to birth it. Only my opinion, but women have plenty of time to abort before the third trimester. Why in Bob's name would you wait so long?
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Mistress sheebasaurusrex wrote:
Maybe if conservatives with di[b][/b]cks took some responsibility for their fertility and not rely 100% on some little pill us ******'s have to take everyday we also wouldn't have this problem.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
It's good to know liberals place so little value in human life. Especially the liberals with vaginas that don't want anyone to expect them to be accountable human beings with responsibilities and consequences to accept for their actions.
Then you value the life of the child more than the mother?
I would think a mother aborting her child in the third trimester would live with the responsibility and emotional consequences for her actions every day of her life.
Then you value the life of the child more than the mother?
I would think a mother aborting her child in the third trimester would live with the responsibility and emotional consequences for her actions every day of her life.
Why in Bob's name would you wait so long?
In case a medical complication arises that could not be foreseen before the third trimester which would seriously call into question the mother's health were she to give birth to the baby.
In case a medical complication arises that could not be foreseen before the third trimester which would seriously call into question the mother's health were she to give birth to the baby.
Ditiris wrote:
In case a medical complication arises that could not be foreseen before the third trimester which would seriously call into question the mother's health were she to give birth to the baby.
Like what?
Seriously, I'd like to know.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Nice of you to exhibit your mysogyny to help bolster my position.
The responsibility of a potential life ultimately rests with the mother. The responsibility of raising and supporting a child ultimately rests with the mother in an overwhelming majority of cases. Women know this to the core of their beings.
Your supposed outrage at weighing the value of a human life is hypocritical or self delusional. We, as a society do it all the time, with actual people. You seem perfectly comfortable with that.
The responsibility of a potential life ultimately rests with the mother. The responsibility of raising and supporting a child ultimately rests with the mother in an overwhelming majority of cases. Women know this to the core of their beings.
Your supposed outrage at weighing the value of a human life is hypocritical or self delusional. We, as a society do it all the time, with actual people. You seem perfectly comfortable with that.
Oh look. It's CrimsonMagician part two. I told it, and I'll tell you, just because you managed to get the collective short bus that is the FFXI forum to declare you their leader doesn't make you any less of a moron. Thanks for chiming in though. Always happy to see Kao's affirmative action plan at work.
How is this relevent to the discussion? We are referring to late term, partial birth abortions. If you are simply looking for a method of birth control, you have almost 6 months before real viability sets in. Root it out before it can breath on its own if given the chance.
Now, toddle off to fingerpainting with the rest of the football helmet wearing retards that play your game who mistakenly think what you have to say is enlightening.
sheebasaurusrex wrote:
Maybe if conservatives with ***** took some responsibility for their fertility and not rely 100% on some little pill us ******'s have to take everyday we also wouldn't have this problem.
Now, toddle off to fingerpainting with the rest of the football helmet wearing retards that play your game who mistakenly think what you have to say is enlightening.
Nevermind Smash, folks. He's just a partially aborted fetus that managed to survive and has been angry about it ever since. Those crushing headaches that stem from the forceps squeezing his bread basket, lo, those many years ago, have left him with an abiding hate of anyone who possibly could deny him the sweet release from this Hell we call life.
Sad, but true.
Totem
Sad, but true.
Totem
I vote to change Smash's name to Angry Fetus!
Who's with me??
Who's with me??
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Princess Tare wrote:
Ditiris wrote:
In case a medical complication arises that could not be foreseen before the third trimester which would seriously call into question the mother's health were she to give birth to the baby.
Like what?
Seriously, I'd like to know.
Sever cases of eclampsia can cause this problem...but typically the baby can be delivered with C-section and lots of meds.
Also:
1. Some conditions such a hydrocephaly and some skeletal dysplasias may not be detectable until after 20 weeks;
2. Intra-uterine infection may sometimes be only confirmed post 20 weeks and
3. Conditions recognised prior to 20 weeks may subsequently worsen. For example, renal abnormalities.
from http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/ahs/archive/report/report7.htm
Quote:
Nice of you to exhibit your mysogyny to help bolster my position.
Quote:
The responsibility of a potential life ultimately rests with the mother. The responsibility of raising and supporting a child ultimately rests with the mother in an overwhelming majority of cases. Women know this to the core of their beings.
Quote:
Your supposed outrage at weighing the value of a human life is hypocritical or self delusional. We, as a society do it all the time, with actual people. You seem perfectly comfortable with that.
Quote:
1. Some conditions such a hydrocephaly and some skeletal dysplasias may not be detectable until after 20 weeks;
2. Intra-uterine infection may sometimes be only confirmed post 20 weeks and
3. Conditions recognised prior to 20 weeks may subsequently worsen. For example, renal abnormalities.
2. Intra-uterine infection may sometimes be only confirmed post 20 weeks and
3. Conditions recognised prior to 20 weeks may subsequently worsen. For example, renal abnormalities.
Ahh, throw it away because it might not be perfect. Good argument. My son is living proof that it goes the other way too. Conditions may also subsequently resolve themselves.
Recent Visitors: 184
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (184)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Strike two for Partial Birth Abortion Ban
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC