Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Myyco.com Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
    #6806366 -

As many of you know, the SCOTUS, by a vote of 5-4, upheld Bush's ban on partial birth abortions. What are your thoughts on this. For me, a partial birth abortion was wrong. It seems to pure infanticide.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: Le_Canard]
    #6806635 -

I agree. I do not support banning abortions outright, and this ruling does not prevent a women from getting an abortion.

Personally, I think abortions should only happen in the early stages and with the father's consent (except for rape, etc.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: Le_Canard]
    #6806690 -

Am I right in understanding that this only bans the technique and doesn't have any language which deals with the age of the fetus?

Is it possible to perform a healthy abortion without this technique during the 2nd trimester?


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: Le_Canard]
    #6806713 -

I don't see how the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate such things(it sure as hell doesn't fall under the category of interstate commerce), but I guess that doesn't really count for much any more.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: Le_Canard]
    #6806722 -

dont get me wrong ..im pro-choice..but theres a big difference between getting an abortion vs cutting a babys' head off when its half-way out...but what is disturbing about this ruling is that the SCOTUS reversed its earlier position so easily by dint of congressional action..even if it was the right thing to do...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: Le_Canard]
    #6807477 -

Stepping stone.

They're just trying to hollow out the womb of Roe v. Wade.

Edited by TheHateCamel (04/19/07 12:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: Annapurna1]
    #6807603 -

> but theres a big difference between getting an abortion vs cutting a babys' head off when its half-way out.

The only difference is time... a few months...

It is difficult for me, because personally I am anti-abortion, but I support pro-choice for others. (It is not the job of the government to legislate moral values!)

> I don't see how the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate such things

The big question... is a human fetus entitled to the same constitutional protections that a human being is entitled? If so, then abortion is murder, thus it falls under the federal government and the constitution. Personally, I don't consider a fetus to be a person until it is born... not from a moral perspective, but from a legal one... there are too many legal issues that arise if we consider a fetus to be a person. For example, how is citizenship defined... by the country of conception... country of birth... etc... do we toss mothers that miscarry into jail for manslaughter?

When the country is split 50/50 on an issue, such as with abortion, the federal government needs to protect the right to decide, not make the decision. Let the individual states, or communities, or families worry about the issue.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: TheHateCamel]
    #6808297 -

TheHateCamel said:
Stepping stone.

Their just trying to hollow out the womb of Roe v. Wade.


This is actually a significant stepping stone, because it is the first Federal Law that places a restriction on abortions. Roe v. Wade is kind of a weird law because it bans states from banning abortions, so an overturning of Roe v. Wade wouldn't ban abortions at all it would just place the power of banning them back in the hands of states.

I wouldn't be so uncomfortable with that if there weren't already a federal law on the books that prevents teenagers under 18 from crossing state lines to get an abortion if their home state has outlawed abortions. The law punishes anyone the teenager in question, anyone who assists them in crossing state lines, and the doctor who performs the abortion.

To me it is just stupid to prevent teenagers from getting abortions. Combine that with the abstinence only sex health education initiatives and I start to wonder if the Federal Government is just trying to breed as many kids as possible to continue to fight the Iraqi insurgency in 2025.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil 
- Thomas Paine

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: gluke bastid]
    #6808314 -

I have no problem with this law, and I'm about as staunch a defender of abortion rights as you can find anywhere.

I have no problem with any law that bans abortion after a certain time period. To me, it seems unethical to make a woman have a child that she does not want. This is setting both the woman and the baby up for a lifetime of problems. That said, a woman should have a responsibility to, if she does not want to have a child, to end the pregnancy as early as possible.

I find partial birth abortion to be a disgusting practice, and my only qualm with the passage of a law against it is that it does seem likely to be used as a stepping stone, as someone else has mentioned.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #6808439 -

> I find partial birth abortion to be a disgusting practice

Because you find it disgusting is reason to outlaw it for everybody?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: Seuss]
    #6808647 -

Not at all.

I find many things peronsally disgusting that I stick up for on a regular basis...

Tobacco usage and homosexuality being the two that pop into my head right away...

As I said, I just think the onus should be on the woman to have an abortion as soon as possible, as opposed to waiting until the third trimester.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #6808707 -

Madtowntripper said:
As I said, I just think the onus should be on the woman to have an abortion as soon as possible, as opposed to waiting until the third trimester.


And you believe its the governments job to step in and enforce this?

You know, sometimes women dont find out until very late they are pregnant. Or life circumstances change during the pregnancy and suddenly bringing a baby into the world at that time would only be hurting the potential child.

I agree, partial birth abortion is disgusting. Which is why if my wife wanted one, there would be hell. But if my neighbor wants to get one, I could care less. That should be their decision, not the governments.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: Seuss]
    #6809317 -

>> but theres a big difference between getting an abortion vs cutting a babys' head off when its half-way out.

> The only difference is time... a few months...

incorrect (see below)...

> It is difficult for me, because personally I am anti-abortion, but I ? > support pro-choice for others. (It is not the job of the government to > legislate moral values!)

"pro-choice" doesnt mean "pro-partial-birth-abortion"...theres nothing in roe v wade that requires a partial birth "abortion" to be legal...although i still have some doubts about the SCOTUSs methodology in reversing its earlier position...and im not a doctor..but i doubt that there is any medical condition that would require a partial birth abortion to the exclusion of all other procedures...

> The big question... is a human fetus entitled to the same constitutional protections that a human being is entitled?

i dont know about full constitutional protections..but most states will charge you with two counts of murder if you kill a woman thats >3 months pregnant...this is exactly the same logic as roe v wade..which merely acknowledges the scientific fact that there is a point where an unborn foetus becomes conscious..and as such has more rights than a non-sentient embryo...

many of the problems ppl with roe v wade and its offshoots is the fact that the 3-month time limit is far from being precise...unfortunately..it is impossible to do any better for legal purposes...

and i fully agree that laws against transporting teenagers across state lines to get an abortion within the 3-month time limit are a dangerous unconstitutional infringement of a womans' rights under roe v wade...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: gluke bastid]
    #6809365 -

gluke bastid said:
This is actually a significant stepping stone, because it is the first Federal Law that places a restriction on abortions.


Ummmm no. Not even close. Roe itself places restrictions on abortion. You do not have carte blanche to kill a fetus up until 1 second before birth. I think that's clear.
Quote:
Roe v. Wade is kind of a weird law (zappa insert here Roe is not a law) because it bans states from banning abortions, so an overturning of Roe v. Wade wouldn't ban abortions at all it would just place the power of banning them back in the hands of states.


100% correct. This is in fact the Giuliani position that it is not something that should have been decided by unelected and unremovable justices. I think RvW was a brilliant piece of legislation.
Quote:
I wouldn't be so uncomfortable with that if there weren't already a federal law on the books that prevents teenagers under 18 from crossing state lines to get an abortion if their home state has outlawed abortions. The law punishes anyone the teenager in question, anyone who assists them in crossing state lines, and the doctor who performs the abortion.


I have zero problem with those under 18 not being able to obtain elective medical care without parental notification. Or tattoos or piercings or a whole boatload of things. Sorry, kids are stoopit. Are some parents stoopit? You bet. Should we sterilize stoopit people? Be careful what you wish for.
Quote:
To me it is just stupid to prevent teenagers from getting abortions. Combine that with the abstinence only sex health education initiatives and I start to wonder if the Federal Government is just trying to breed as many kids as possible to continue to fight the Iraqi insurgency in 2025.



They are not being prevented from getting abortions. For instance, if my daughter were to be stupid enough to get pregnant I would be happy to take her to the clinic to eradicate the infestation. She's a teenager. As far as the ludicrous abstinence thing, who gives a fuck? The federal gummint has nothing to do with kids screwing and your last semi-point is just gratuitous nonsense, as you know. No person under 18 should undergo any non emergency medical procedure without the informed consent of a parent or guardian. Period.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: Le_Canard]
    #6809452 -

This law outlaws taking the fetus out and killin it... its still legal to kill it and then take it out...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6809529 -

zappaisgod said:
Ummmm no. Not even close. Roe itself places restrictions on abortion. You do not have carte blanche to kill a fetus up until 1 second before birth. I think that's clear.


Where?

Quote:
zappaisgod said:100% correct. This is in fact the Giuliani position that it is not something that should have been decided by unelected and unremovable justices. I think RvW was a brilliant piece of legislation.


Do you think this is a good decision and if so, why?


Quote:
zappaisgod said:I have zero problem with those under 18 not being able to obtain elective medical care without parental notification. Or tattoos or piercings or a whole boatload of things. Sorry, kids are stoopit. Are some parents stoopit? You bet. Should we sterilize stoopit people? Be careful what you wish for.


Those sound like prejudice statements. Do you have any evidence, or even reasoning to back up your cheap rhetoric? I don't see how trading a teenagers entire future for an object that cannot feel pain and has no sense of awareness can by any means be considered a rational decision.


Quote:
zappaisgod said:They are not being prevented from getting abortions.


If it goes back to a state decision they are being prevented de facto in red states.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:For instance, if my daughter were to be stupid enough to get pregnant


Highly probable. =)

Quote:
zappaisgod said:I would be happy to take her to the clinic to eradicate the infestation.


Is this going back to that statement about preventing stupid people from breeding? I wouldn't be surprised if someone like you applied such standards to his own offspring.

Quote:
zappaisgod said: No person under 18 should undergo any non emergency medical procedure without the informed consent of a parent or guardian. Period.


You obviously see children as property.


--------------------


"Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #6809632 -

FrenchSocialist said:
zappaisgod said:
Ummmm no. Not even close. Roe itself places restrictions on abortion. You do not have carte blanche to kill a fetus up until 1 second before birth. I think that's clear.


Where?



Read the decision. It's in there.
Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:100% correct. This is in fact the Giuliani position that it is not something that should have been decided by unelected and unremovable justices. I think RvW was a brilliant piece of legislation.


Do you think this is a good decision and if so, why?



I think it is a brilliant piece of legislation. You can learn the difference on your own
Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:I have zero problem with those under 18 not being able to obtain elective medical care without parental notification. Or tattoos or piercings or a whole boatload of things. Sorry, kids are stoopit. Are some parents stoopit? You bet. Should we sterilize stoopit people? Be careful what you wish for.


Those sound like prejudice statements. Do you have any evidence, or even reasoning to back up your cheap rhetoric? I don't see how trading a teenagers entire future for an object that cannot feel pain and has no sense of awareness can by any means be considered a rational decision.



What? You don't like the kidz are stoopit part? You want evidence that kidz R stoopit? Unbelievable. Pray tell, at what age do you think they should be making medical decisions for themselves? 8? 6? 14? Cheap rhetoric? Come my little petunia, tell us when YOU think people are mature enough to make their own decisions. Perhaps in utero? After diapers? After what?

And, just in case you have a severe case of incomprehension (oh no, not again), I do believe I have made my opinion on the desirability of abortion quite clear. See what you have quoted but can't understand below.
Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:They are not being prevented from getting abortions.


If it goes back to a state decision they are being prevented de facto in red states.


Ifs and buts are fruits and nuts. Try to stay on point. Can you?
Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:For instance, if my daughter were to be stupid enough to get pregnant


Highly probable. =)


Why would you say that about my daughter? That's pretty fucked up.
Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:I would be happy to take her to the clinic to eradicate the infestation.


Is this going back to that statement about preventing stupid people from breeding? I wouldn't be surprised if someone like you applied such standards to his own offspring.


It's almost time for you to go away.
Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: No person under 18 should undergo any non emergency medical procedure without the informed consent of a parent or guardian. Period.


You obviously see children as property.


No, I see them as not competent to run their own affairs.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6809674 -

zappaisgod said:
Read the decision. It's in there.


It's not my job to find your evidence.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:I think it is a brilliant piece of legislation. You can learn the difference on your own


So you in effect cannot back up your assertion.


Quote:
zappaisgod said:What? You don't like the kidz are stoopit part? You want evidence that kidz R stoopit?


By kids your referring to anyone under 18.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:Come my little petunia, tell us when YOU think people are mature enough to make their own decisions.


When they go by reason instead of rhetoric.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:I do believe I have made my opinion on the desirability of abortion quite clear. See what you have quoted but can't understand below.


I think your reasoning is very confused.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:Ifs and buts are fruits and nuts. Try to stay on point. Can you?


They de facto will be outlawed in Red States. That is the point.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:It's almost time for you to go away.


So you admit to being willing to apply your darwinian standards to your own daughter, that's pretty sad. It makes me think something really traumatic must have happened in your life to warp your reasoning so badly.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:No, I see them as not competent to run their own affairs.


Not all adults are competent to run their own affairs either. Those incompetent adults should not be allowed to do permanent damage to their child's or teenager's lives.


--------------------


"Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin

Edited by FrenchSocialist (04/19/07 05:50 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #6809886 -

> Highly probable. =)

Be careful.  Very uncool using somebodies child as the source of a flame.  Please debate the topic and leave the personal attacks behind.  :mad:


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #6809914 -

FrenchSocialist said:
zappaisgod said:
Read the decision. It's in there.


It's not my job to find your evidence.

It's not evidence, it's the actual opinion. Read away
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

Quote:
zappaisgod said:I think it is a brilliant piece of legislation. You can learn the difference on your own


So you in effect cannot back up your assertion.

My assertion is that they have overstepped their authority. It is an opinion shared by many


Quote:
zappaisgod said:What? You don't like the kidz are stoopit part? You want evidence that kidz R stoopit?


By kids your referring to anyone under 18.

Yep

Quote:
zappaisgod said:Come my little petunia, tell us when YOU think people are mature enough to make their own decisions.


When they go by reason instead of rhetoric.

False dichotomy. And are you to be the arbiter of what is reasonable? I don't fucking think so.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:I do believe I have made my opinion on the desirability of abortion quite clear. See what you have quoted but can't understand below.


I think your reasoning is very confused.

Of course you do, since you can't follow it

Quote:
zappaisgod said:Ifs and buts are fruits and nuts. Try to stay on point. Can you?


They de facto will be outlawed in Red States. That is the point.

No, it isn't. Not in this thread, anyway. The argument we are currently having is over whether parental notification constitutes a forbidding of abortion. Obviously, in spite of your trollishness, it does not. See my personal stance.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:It's almost time for you to go away.


So you admit to being willing to apply your darwinian standards to your own daughter, that's pretty sad. It makes me think something really traumatic must have happened in your life to warp your reasoning so badly.

Darwinian standards??? What the fuck are you blathering about? On one hand you support abortion so as to not ruin a child's (the young mother) life, which I agree with, but then you put forth this nonsensical sidestep into some fatuous misapplication of Darwin. Which is it, petunia, is abortion OK or is it not OK? In case you still have no clue, I would encourage my daughter to flush the insensate bundle of potential liability. I also insist that I be made fully aware of any such decision in her life. Until she is over 18. Feel free to delve into the subtle differences between "encourage" and "insist".

Quote:
zappaisgod said:No, I see them as not competent to run their own affairs.


Not all adults are competent to run their own affairs either. Those incompetent adults should not be allowed to do permanent damage to their child's or teenager's lives.


That is entirely correct. Sometimes their children are taken away and another guardian is appointed. Until the child comes of age. And that guardian is not always competent either. But one individual that is NEVER competent is the child. At any rate, the assertion is that parental notification amounts to a forbidding. Given that I am a parent and would not forbid it de facto puts the lie to that statement


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Myyco.com Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* House Passes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban *DELETED*
( 1 2 3 all )		 Demon 3,723 50 10/03/03 04:32 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Partial birth abortion
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 RandalFlagg 5,194 101 11/06/04 02:02 PM
by zappaisgod
* Supreme Court term packed with meaty cases lonestar2004 1,011 4 10/03/05 02:18 PM
by lonestar2004
* President Bush nominates Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court. psilomonkey 716 3 10/31/05 08:35 AM
by lonestar2004
* Tradesport.com Favors Clement for Supreme Court lonestar2004 688 2 07/19/05 04:01 PM
by lonestar2004
* Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes
( 1 2 3 all )		 Pirate_Patrick 3,345 40 06/29/05 10:34 AM
by automan
* new supreme court nominee has never been a judge afoaf 1,168 13 10/03/05 08:55 PM
by afoaf
* Supreme Court ruling: police may now use drug sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops SWEDEN 2,501 15 01/29/05 05:00 PM
by Swami

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,756 topic views. 0 members, 36 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.1 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.