Abortion decision text link

[Merryprankster]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...friend=nytimes

[Oso]

ok...???...the importance as you see it is________.

[Merryprankster]

Oh, I was hoping for some rumination the subject here, but I guess I'll start.

To me, regardless of which side of the issue you fall on here, the majority decision has to be unnerving.

1. The language of the decision notes that a legitimate interest Congress had in the health of the mother in passing the law was that women shouldn't undergo a procedure they weren't completely informed about, that had long-lasting consequences down the road. There is no mandate in the law for a signed "I have been fully informed" consent form or anything like that. Rather, the decision cites something along the line of a reasonable inference that this law would promote increased awareness among pregnant women about abortion procedures...

2. The majority decision, IMO guts the requirement that abortion regulation make exceptions for the health of the mother. This law contains language to the effect of "This procedure is never medically necessary." The court essentially ruled that the Congressional determination that the procedure is never medically necessary trumps the exception requirement.

2a. The majority decision basically says that Congress has the capacity to make health decisions that, IMO should be between patient and doctor. Who are THEY to tell you which procedure is best for your health? They aren't medical experts and no amount of research and testimony is going to make them competent to make this determination.

Other than the above, this is quite insulting to women. The 1st issue essentially says "we want to protect women from the consequences of decisions they may not fully understand" I don't even know how to respond/address that, it's so blatantly objectionable.

And I am especially concerned that this establishes a precedent that legislators can make health decisions simply by declaring something "not medically necessary."

[Black Jack II]

I agree,

Partial birth abortion leaves a very foul taste in my mouth but I don't believe it's ever in the governments right to decide for a women what is in her best medical interest, at least within the realm of commonsense anyway.

I also go the other way and don't believe we should be dishing out any government funds for poor mothers to get abortions either, something which a few peeps are trying to do.

[TenTigers]

Perhaps you don't live in or near an area where you see the need for funding for such things.
The other day, I saw this young girl pushing a stroller, she must have been fifteen, tops. The first thing in my naive mind was,
"Oh, how nice. This little girl is taking her baby sister for a walk."
Nope, this little girl was taking her baby for a walk.
When I was growing up,we never had the term,"My baby's Daddy" which today is so common.

[Mas Judt]

As a culture, we need to be honest and calling it what it is: Infanticide.

Let's really understand what it is. Late term abortion is expelling a living child, piercing it's skull with a spike and crushing it's skull.

Now if you are fine with that, I wonder about your manhood. Have we become so selfish that we cannot protect the weak and defenseless? One of the reasons most religions are so hung up on sex is because of the consequences. We attempt to dodge the consequences by referring to infanticide as 'abortion' or a 'medical condition' that needs 'treatment.'

Recently a 22 week old 'fetus' (those things you can terminate without concious) went home and survived. The argument for infanticide has always been viability. Viability is now encroaching on that sacred first trimester. So how do we define where on the slope killing a child (or potential child) is okay?

The selfishness and carelessness I see in particular from women on this issue. The rabid support of cruel and inhuman things like late-term abortions makes me wonder who these women are and if they have any soul at all. It is frightening.

Now for a secular conservative like myself some would argue that this is not a defenseible position for me i.e. less government et al. But the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness requires one to take some responsibilty to create conditions for those around you to live.

Has anyone else ever really thought about this? When did killing real babies become a 'right.'

Now, a far as the law in the case, I agree with MP & BJ - legislators should not determine medical treatment (although in a way they do already, don't they? By authorizing what kind of medical practitioners are legal.)

I think the real argument needs to be a real examination of what we are debating, and the pro-infanticide side should call it what it is and be forced to watch the baby be born, and cry while drive that spike in its head and crush it's skull. And tell me you still deserve to be called a human being.

[Mas Judt]

Oddly enough I am watching Bill Maher right now and most everyone tends to agree with my point - whew. I was beginning to think this is Nazi Germany. (Although some states in the U.S. did inspire him with thier eugenics programs.)

One commentator pointed out that she was 'pro choice', yet deeply oppossed to this. Why? Because the doctors she talked to told her that this was not a procedure to save a mother, but a procedure to get a dead baby.

Which makes me wonder about the dem presidential candidates that came out n support of this horrific act.

[Merryprankster]

Mas Judt,

It's funny that you mention viability, I was just talking to my wife about this and commenting that anti-abortion activists are really just impatient. They've already won the fight. They just have to wait.

As medical technology improves, viability becomes earlier and earlier and the window for abortion decreases. States and the federal government have every right to move the window further and further back, IMO as long as they make an exception for the health of the mother, as a potential life is always worth less than an existing one (viability is a PERCENT chance of survival, not 100%, hence my reasoning here that an established life is worth more.)

[Mega-Foot]

As a culture, we need to be honest and calling it what it is: Infanticide.

Let's really understand what it is. Late term abortion is expelling a living child, piercing it's skull with a spike and crushing it's skull.

Expelling children does not do them a world of good, in my opinion. At best, they ought to be suspended, so they can at least go back and get their education; most especially if it is late in the school term. Anything else is infanticide; you have stemmed their intellectual progress, and they will never learn to utilize the tiger of the spiritual mind with such a policy intact. Furthermore, their coursework has been all for nought. If they have shown integrity in their studies, I don't think they should be expelled for something as petty as piercing. Truly, I urge you to reconsider; we ought not leave any child behind. Aborting education is horrible, I agree. And although those who have graduated from my Shaolin Ninjitsu school in LA can in fact crush a skull, more importantly, I have taught them to preserve.

"Life is for the living, but martial arts is life - the praying mantis uses its fangs for life, not death"--Grandmaster Sensei Takeshi, 10th dan of Shaolin Judo Jujitsu, and the exquisite art of Judo Katana.

Honestly, I'm not into piercing, but it is a big fad in some circles, especially in LA and in Britain, where I spend my days in solitude and meditation. Some of them do have spikes in their skulls; some in the nipples, and some in their crotchal regions, as well. Although bodily mutilation is a degenerate's game, I don't follow your logic in linking this with expelling children from school late in the school term. It is a blatant non sequitur, sir. Reconsider your post, and please reply. It's just fashion, after all.

I wonder about your manhood.

I don't follow, but mine is eight and a half inches. I know some pretty fit babes who will say it is bigger, but by both metric and American Standard measurments, it is almost exactly eight and a half inches, give or take a millimeter. I know some judo-katana chi gong exercises that can improve girth, but not length. PM me if you would like herbal and chi gong tips, guaranteed to please your particular fit babe.

Have we become so selfish that we cannot protect the weak and defenseless?

Truly, he who is a man, would have no need to prove his masculinity by kicking undisciplined children onto the streets for transgressions against school policy, especially over something like body piercing. What's a little nipple spike in the grand scheme of things? We ought to protect the weak and defenseless, but more importantly, we ought to teach them to become strong in the spiritual tiger mind, and how to defend themselves, as well.

If you are active in your community, I urge you to contact me so we can take these educational assassins, these infantifanatics to the mats. Perhaps a bilateral Shaolin Ninjitsu camp to purge your community of these contra-educational unilateral abortive piercing hate-mongers? PM me with details, so we can set up a board meeting. I may be able to get Aishida Kim in on the mission, and perhaps Grandmaster Sensei Takeshi. A reckoning is coming. We shall be the bearers of reform, by sword if needs be.

Recently a 22 week old 'fetus' (those things you can terminate without concious) went home and survived.

This is a truly remarkable story. Do you have a source? A 22 week old fetus went home and survived being expelled? More imporantly, how did this fetus survive the educational system for so long? Perhaps it is in the fetus' best interest to have been expelled. I simply can't see how sitting in a school room learning compulsory elementary arithmatic could have done a fetus any good. Did it have sufficient motor skills and comprehension skills in order to understand the material it was given? Is it the mother who has helped it survive through home schooling, or did they have to bring in a professional, adept enough in the educational methods of 22 week old children. Honestly, this just seems like another case of pushing a child too far, too soon.

Oftentimes, giving any child of any age too much information retards their progress.

"The tiger cub can eat the eyes of the hyena, but can it see the hyena's world, without the taint of the tiger's blood?"

BTW, since when have semesters been divided into trimesters? The last I recall, public education had moved onto block semesters. A trimester, I think, might push children to learn too much in too little time. You know what they say: "Jack of all trades, master of none."

"I have seen the Shaolin Ninja who can beard the tiger's bum from one hundred yards with a fly dart; but can he slap the monkey or gut the sparrow at one yard with a stick? I think not....."

If you were to kill a child on a slope (what a strange notion), I would do it near the base, where there are thick woods, and you could stash the body.

I emphasize that I do not condone the killing of children on slopes, however.

The rabid support of cruel and inhuman things like late-term abortions makes me wonder who these women are and if they have any soul at all.

This reminds me of something that happened a week ago at a pub in Surrey:

I was walking down a country road, when I spotted two shadows out of the corner of my eye, dragging something into a barn. When I heard someone scream "HELP!! They're going to kill me!", I ran headlong into the fray. Luckily, I keep my Judo Katana strapped to my right thigh in case something like this happens. To my surprise, the three figures all turned out to be females, mostly fit and good looking. One of the captors, a bodaciously buxom blonde bombshell, pointed a silenced 9mm pistol at me and asked me if I was ready to die over a stranger. I replied: "The tiger is always ready to die, when it seeks its dinner, and sleeps in the den of the lion." She dropped her pistol and offered to let me have my way with her if I would teach her the secrets of the spiritual eye of the tiger mind.

Even monsters have souls, my young learner. Even women have souls. They're not quite as big as a man's, or even as intelligent, but they do exist.

But the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness requires one to take some responsibilty to create conditions for those around you to live.

PM me for board meeting details. I am ready to take this bull by the horns. Does your Grandmaster Sensei furnish you with weaponry, or do I need to bring the Judo Katanas for all? I have quite a store. Make sure you include sizes in the PM. We'll need ninja suits for all shapes and sizes. I can furnish these, but they'll have Lazer Quest branded on the back. It looks nice, but it's a dead giveaway when it comes to where the suits came from, and could put me in legal jeopardy if one of your students is detected in the onslaught, and authorities are alerted.

Has anyone else ever really thought about this? When did killing real babies become a 'right.'"

"Even the lion eats his cub."

I'm rather fond of veal, even if I disagree in the manner in which veal are cultivated.

The way I see it, humans are just glorified animals anyways.

If you are speaking constitutionally, I believe it is covered in the First Ammendment, and in the California Educational System's penal codes, which are really dependent on the board of education and the say of the administrators.

legislators should not determine medical treatment

I've always had an issue with the issuance of ritalin for educational misconduct and ADD, etc.

They ought to train in martial arts instead. It is a progressive, adaptive, individualistic regimen of self-discipline and self-improvement.

"He who pops a ritalin is instantly transformed; he who masters the katana is transformed for eternity."

I think the real argument needs to be a real examination of what we are debating, and the pro-infanticide side should call it what it is and be forced to watch the baby be born, and cry while drive that spike in its head and crush it's skull. And tell me you still deserve to be called a human being.

As far as I know, if you're in school, you're probably a minor still, and need both the consent of an adult and legal guardian to recieve a piercing, and that guardian needs to be present. I shall consult my legal oracle concerning this, but I am positive it is true. I honestly think we do need to argue about the examination of what we are debating, but we ought to debate the argument, which is in fact the examination of the debate concerning the honesty of what it is we need to argue. And yes, those who want to expel children for spikes in the head, be it in the ears, nose, lips, eyebrows, or thos strange spikes that protrude from chins--they ought to have to watch that child's progress through school, its various scholastic procilivities and achievements, and then decide whether or not a mere spike in the nose or eyebrow is worthing of expellation, and warrants a beating at the hands of the school board.

Those who condone the beating of children expelled for body piercing aren't quite inhuman, but they're pretty goddarned close, if you ask me.

[Mas Judt]

A good try, but not very clever. That kind of 'dumb' humr wrks best when kept short.


MP - I agree. Although I am frightened by the enthusiasm shown by so many women for infanticide is just --- disturbing.

[Merryprankster]

I'm not 100% certain what I think about this issue just yet. However, as I said, I am more concerned that Congress can invalidate the protection of the mother clause by "finding a procedure to never be medically necessary." I assume that will apply to state legislatures as well.

Ugh.

[Mas Judt]

I'll need to sit back and read this. The point may be that this procedure is not required to save a life - at this point the baby can be removed and live. You don't have to crush the baby's skull in order to save the mother. It's just not relevant to the mother's health. The only purpose for the procedure is to produce a dead child.

In which case the protection of the mother clause is not really relevant and just a red herring. I've spoken to a few doctor friends - this is thier take as well. From thier perspective is as described above... so if your only result is the intentional murder of a viable person... why do people want to do this? Why should it be allowed?

[Merryprankster]

Mas Judt,

This isn't about the procedure it's about the legal precedent of a legislature being allowed to determine what is or isn't in the best interest of the patient. I'm not simply talking about the effect in THIS case, although in this case, I disagree too.

It is foreseeable that, for some reason, no matter how small a chance, that an intact D & E is the safest, most effective, right way to protect the health of the mother, perhaps for some endangering medical reason and not a voluntary abortion. This law makes that act a crime.

I have a problem with that.

BEYOND this case, the SC has just said it's ok for the legislature to declare a medical procedure not medically necessary.

I have a problem with that too.

[Mas Judt]

MP, I see your point, but i think the legislature already does this on both the state & federal levels. In some states Chiropractors are not primary care. In most states acupuncturists aren't. Both treatments and modalities have been legislated... there was even a doctor in the 50's who was jailed for saying vitamins might help fight cancer... so the medical establishment isn't always correct either in judgements and there is substantial evidence of government interference in care and treatment choice. (For instance Laetril - US citizens had to leave the country to get this supposedly life-saving cancer treatment.) In this case, the court probably sees preserving life more important than a case that doctors say does not exist. Personally, I would rather they choose the option that does not automatically condemn an innocent child to a painful and cruel death.

The thing you are concerned about in this case already exists in our history.

[Merryprankster]

Regulation will and should occur, and on that issue, I'm not quibbling. But most court cases rely on expert testimony in the courtroom to establish what the appropriate care was in that particular situation.
This has taken "that particular situation," out and made expert testimony irrelevant. In theory, you could have 20 doctors come in and unanimously declare that in this particular case, an intact D & E was the only safe, viable option, with no dissenting medical opinions, and the doctor performing the procedure would still go to jail.

And I am extremely disturbed that the Supreme Court has blessed the power of legislature to make these types of decisions because it politicizes health care. Congress can now call a biased "panel of experts" before committee or the full body to support a pre-determined political conclusion about our health.

Doing that about tax theory or acquisition contracts is one thing, but this turns on some very basic individual rights premises. The sanctity of the doctor-patient privelege in court demonstrates how seriously we take this sort of thing and how strongly the relationship is protected.

I find the above two circumstances very, very troubling. Yes, UNLIKELY, but nonetheless troubling. I'm not a big slippery slope kinda guy, but even leaving the door open for this type of thing strikes me as a bad idea.

And I'm sure it's happened before...but now, it is enshrined by the final arbiter of legality.
It can't be taken back unless the SC overturns the decision or in part - something that tends to happen not all that often. Of course, on this issue who knows - it's so volatile and you never know when somebody will retire.

Incidentally, Ginsburg's dissent was better written. Kennedy needs to hire new clerks.