Partial-birth Abortion Ruling

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!

SCOTUS Ruling:

Agree - and Roe v. Wade should be overtuned
0
No votes
Agree - the rest of abortion rights should remain intact
2
25%
Neutral - ruling reflects no particular importance
0
No votes
Disagree - There are "health exceptions" that must be considered
2
25%
Disagree - There should be no infringement of abortion rights
4
50%
 
Total votes: 8

Sparrowhawk
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:20 am

Partial-birth Abortion Ruling

Postby Sparrowhawk » Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:39 am

You've probably heard (unless you're one of our foreign denizens), but the Supreme Court of the United States of America recently made a ruling regarding certain types of late-trimester abortion:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotu ... index.html
• 5-4 ruling could open door to revisiting Roe v. Wade
• Justice Kennedy: Law does not violate constitutional right to abortion
• New justices Alito, Roberts provided solid conservative majority to uphold ban
• Federal law has never gone into effect pending court rulings

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.

The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
I thought perhaps this belonged in the moral philosophy section of the forums; but besides the issue of morality, it is a discussion of law, politics and rights as well as government - not to mention that it seems like most people avoid the Religion and Moral Philosophy boards like the plague these days.

So get to it!
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:15 am

My biggest concern is that there is no provision for the health of the mother. I have nothing against late-trimester abortion bans (though I am pro-choice), but we must not forget the mother in all this too.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Sparrowhawk
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:20 am

Postby Sparrowhawk » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:40 pm

An Op-Ed press release I received from ARI had an interesting take on the Right's constant campaign against abortion rights:
The Religious Right's Culture of Living Death

By Alex Epstein

Applauding the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a ban on so-called partial birth abortions, President Bush called it a victory for "building a culture of life in America."

The idea of a "culture of life" has been a rallying cry for religious conservatives in their opposition to all abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and in their opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide. By doing everything possible to preserve embryos, fetuses, and the incurably ill or vegetative, they say, we will bring about a "culture of life." "The problem we face . . ." declares conservative icon Rush Limbaugh, "is . . . a culture of death. From abortion on demand . . . to embryonic stem cell research [to] assisted suicide . . ."

But what would life actually be like in their "culture of life"?

Consider a world in which abortion were illegal--which is the exact meaning of the President's pledge, following the Supreme Court's verdict, to "continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law." Pregnant women who rationally desired to abort--whether because of accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, or danger to their lives--would be forced to undergo 20 years of enslavement to the needs of children they did not want to give birth to, or attempt dangerous, back-alley abortions, the kind that crippled or killed untold numbers of women before Roe v. Wade. To prohibit abortion would be to sentence countless women to spiritual--and sometimes literal--death.

Or consider another staple of the "culture of life"--a world in which euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal. Individuals with incurable and unbearable diseases would not be able to die with dignity at a time of their own choosing, but would be subjected to a protracted existence of often unspeakable agony. Their loved ones would have to endure torturous months or years seeing what was once a vibrant human being persist as a mass of pain or as a vegetable--just as, in the now-famous case of Terry Schiavo, her husband Michael had to see his wife for 15 years in a state incapable of emotion, memory, or thought.

Finally, consider a world without embryonic stem cell research. The stem cells that can be extracted from microscopic, 150-cell embryos have the potential to become any other type of human cell--and thus, say scientists, be used in therapies that could save or enhance millions of lives. To stop stem cell research would be to deprive every one of these millions--including those with heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's--of the possibility of a longer, better life.

To uphold these positions in the name of the sanctity of life is a colossal fraud. A "culture of life" would not benefit human life, but cause massive suffering and death.

What could possibly justify the religious conservatives' crusade for such a world? "God's will," they answer. Our lives belong to a supernatural being, they say, and He commands us not to end them "unnaturally," no matter how unbearable they become. He sanctifies bits of protoplasm, they say, and thus commands young women to abandon their ambitions in order to raise unwanted children, and commands everyone to abandon the breathtaking promise of a new field of research.

This is the rise of the same medieval mentality that demanded rejection of the life-enhancing developments of anesthesia, the dissection of corpses, and birth control.

The religious conservatives do not value actual human life; they are consistent followers of the Christian ideal that human life is properly lived in sacrifice to a supernatural being, and that suffering is proof of virtue. The worship of suffering is fundamental to Christianity, a religion whose central figure is glorified for dying a horrific death for the sins of mankind. Several years ago, a prominent religious conservative said of the Schiavo case, "Terry Schiavo . . . is suffering in obedience to God's will." He added: "Isn't suffering in pursuit of God's will the exact center of religious life?"

This is the culture of death--of living death.

Human life is sacred--not because of supernatural declaration, but because of the unique nature and glorious potential of the individual, rational human life: to think, to create, to love, to experience pleasure, to achieve happiness here on earth. A genuine culture of life would leave individuals free to pursue their own happiness--free from coercive injunctions to sacrifice themselves to religious dogma. Such a culture is what we must seek to create, as we do everything possible to fight religious conservatives' culture of living death.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

anonshadow
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm

Postby anonshadow » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:53 pm

What appalls me the most is that people not trained in the medical profession are making calls, in all of these situations, that they are completely unqualified to make.

The "culture of life" of life conservatives seem to be spinning together also seems to be a culture that neglects the medical profession's opinion and experience entirely. I would also like to note that this "culture of life" rarely helps to preserve life where abortion is concerned; they just stop the mother from ending it.



Sparrowhawk
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:20 am

Postby Sparrowhawk » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:31 pm

Then you'll love this:
The Vatican's second-highest ranking doctrinal official on Monday forcefully branded homosexual marriage an evil and denounced abortion and euthanasia as forms of "terrorism with a human face."
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

anonshadow
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm

Postby anonshadow » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:47 pm

Because terrorism doesn't usually have a human face?

(I'm practically over the moon about it. Really. Very little could make my elation upon reading that any greater than it is now.)


All jokes aside--

What really bothers me about the growing emphasis on creating and maintaining a culture centered around morality is that often, things are deemed immoral and are campaigned against legally for no reason beyond, "Because we said so." That's especially true for gay marriage, but it's a problem in other areas, too. There often isn't any quantifiable proof put forward in regards to why these activities are immoral. When you're making legislation based on the issues, there need to be higher standards.




Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests