Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Supreme+Court%22&sid=breitbart.com) upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long- awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.


The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Partial+Birth+Abortion+Ban+Act%22&sid=breitbart.com) that Congress passed and President Bush (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22President+Bush%22&sid=breitbart.com) signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Justices+Clarence+Thomas%22&sid=breitbart.com) and Antonin Scalia (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Antonin+Scalia%22&sid=breitbart.com) also were in the majority.
It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how—not whether—to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Tuesday's ruling.

Six federal courts (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22federal+courts%22&sid=breitbart.com) have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJ2HV82&show_article=1

___________________________________________

Discuss.

[Ilvane]

I think it's a good thing, in some ways. I think few people condone partial birth abortion, with the exception of the life of the mother being in danger.

As long as it doesn't tamper with roe-v-wade, we are good.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

Thank God. I hated that procedure.

[Gan]

I'm not an anti-abortion advocate and this ruling doesnt threaten the constitutionality of a woman's right to choose, IMO.

I'm definately not a fan of the type of procedure this is.

Interesting reactions thus far.

[Ilvane]

The percentage of those procedures that did happen were not high anyway, and 99% of doctors won't do them unless it's for the life of the mother.

So, I'm not sure why it needed to be sent through the courts. For that 1% I suppose.

Angela

[Hulkein]

As long as it doesn't tamper with roe-v-wade, we are good.

Such a good Mass. Catholic you are.

[Ilvane]

I personally am Pro-life Hulkein. Do I believe other women should have the right to abortion if they want it? Yes. It's not my place to regulate what others do.

Also, I am not Catholic, I'm a reformed one.:P

Angela

[Xaerve]

I personally am Pro-life Hulkein. Do I believe other women should have the right to abortion if they want it? Yes. It's not my place to regulate what others do.

So you're pro-choice.

[Miss X]

Pro choice or no choice. Partial birth abortions are disturbing though. 12 weeks is enough time to make the decision.

[Stanley Burrell]

Discuss.

I think a woman's right to choose should extend until the end of the second trimester. I really don't care to place any value on anything except the individual's social welfare.

We could clean our streets the fuck up if we didn't have postpartum depression crackhoes strewn about the streets because people in office believe a haploid cell, fuck a fetus, is a God-shaped being unworthy of even a sheepskin.

At least the decision was split. Not that 99% of any politicians' understanding of applied biology would be... understanding.

[CrystalTears]

I figure you mean trimester, and with that I have to say that I really disagree. Waiting 24 weeks to decide on whether you want to have a child is WAY too long.

That said, this is (thankfully) not about whether it should be done, but effectively how.

[Stanley Burrell]

Its implications are to close doors beyond what most people will think and revel in their epiphanot as a Godsend, no pun intended, meant to somehow better the Americas by preventing some hypothetical, lazy two-bit with her legs open from evilly corrupting our subculture.

If the NIH passed this and said they wouldn't fund any abortion clinics, there would be reason to believe enough scientific proof through openmindedness about the issue had been endowed from the political forces so as to truly curb my above description of what yo funky mind thinks.

I'm glad to have had Clinton grade school education. Jesus Christ, man.

[xtc]

I think it was a good move by the courts.

[Gan]

Here are the statements from the current front running candidates:



I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CZsK



Washington, DC -- "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1451



“The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion,” Giuliani said in a statement on the 5–4 decision. “I agree with it.”

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/giuliani-joins-gop-praise-for-abortion-decision-2007-04-18.html



"I'm very happy about the decision given my position on abortion. Partial birth is one of the most odious aspects of abortion,"
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJ66P80&show_article=1



"Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency," Romney said in a statement. "This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us."
(source is same as McCain)



"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."
http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/200700418-federal-ban/

[CrystalTears]

Okay, Guilliani, Romney or McCain it is.

[Skeeter]

Thank God. I hated that procedure.

maybe you should've just had him wear a condom.

[Keller]

First, Roe v. Wade is no longer the legal standard. It's been Planned Parenthood v. Casey for years now.

Second, this is a pretty fuckin' scary opinion.

[xtc]

Here are the statements from the current front running candidates:


http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CZsK


http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1451


http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/giuliani-joins-gop-praise-for-abortion-decision-2007-04-18.html


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJ66P80&show_article=1


(source is same as McCain)


http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/200700418-federal-ban/


If Supreme Court Justices were ready to step down and retire. I would be more of a McCain, Guiliani man. However since that doesn't seem to be a fear, this isn't an election issue for me.

I like McCain but his continued support for the war in Iraq holds me back.

[Hulkein]

Second, this is a pretty fuckin' scary opinion.

Why? The evidence wasn't there that this would have an impact on the health of the mother. If that's the case, they should give deference to the law makers.

[Kembal]

I don't see how the hell this decision squares with Casey's test for an undue burden. If nothing else, there should be a health exception to the ban. (the law that was upheld has no health exception: i.e. if a partial-birth abortion is the only way to save the life of the mother because of a problem with the pregnancy, the mother is screwed.)

I agree that the procedure is ghoulish and grotesque. However, it can be medically necessary in rare circumstances. The court just reversed a ton of precedent, while trying to argue it didn't.

[Parkbandit]

I don't get the hype.

So, what is the alternative? I don't think there are many here that will argue that it's a womans right to abort that late in the development of an embryo. Is there? If so, speak up.

I don't know much about the law and haven't read the opinion yet... so excuse my ignorance.

[Back]

I don’t see this as such a divisive issue. Like Ilvane said, she is pro-life, but supports women’s choice. I’m the same way. I would never recommend anyone go the abortion route, but I will never say anyone absolutely should not for whatever reason.

Miss X has an interesting take on it though... Pro-choice or no choice? I buy that. I support the choice of the individual rather than wanting to take it away.

[Kembal]

To answer PB's question about the hype: The court just essentially ruled that it is legally permissible for legislatures to decide what medical procedures are allowable or not without regard to a person's life or health.

This has wide-ranging implications beyond the abortion debate. But even in the abortion debate, lawmakers can now take aim at specific procedures and try to get them outlawed, and a court case will be required to resolve each of those bans. It's going to get messy.

[Keller]

Why? The evidence wasn't there that this would have an impact on the health of the mother. If that's the case, they should give deference to the law makers.

It's a viable medical alternative which should be available to a patient and their doctor.

This issue has been hashed out in a past thread. I don't have the time or energy to rehash it here.

[Parkbandit]

To answer PB's question about the hype: The court just essentially ruled that it is legally permissible for legislatures to decide what medical procedures are allowable or not without regard to a person's life or health.

This has wide-ranging implications beyond the abortion debate. But even in the abortion debate, lawmakers can now take aim at specific procedures and try to get them outlawed, and a court case will be required to resolve each of those bans. It's going to get messy.

But there is legal precidence from the Supreme Court already regarding abortion. This decision is just for partial birth abortion.

I think this is nothing more than a way for liberals to get their 'OMG, BUSH R BANNING ABORTIONS" crowd riled up to open the door for "You must vote Democrat or a womans rights will be taken away!!"

This has little to do with abortion and a lot to do with political maneuvering.

[Hulkein]

It's a viable medical alternative which should be available to a patient and their doctor.

Looks like they did a pretty shitty job presenting evidence of that.

[Bartlett]

To my knowledge, there has not been any anti-murder legislation proposed that would strip doctors of the ability to save a woman's life. It is easy to call this a religious issue and thus call it unconstitutional, but it really is a matter of biology. A human being, regardless of his/her developmental stage, is a human being. You have the right to not get pregnant. You don't have the right to get pregnant and kill someone for it.

[Latrinsorm]

Pro-choice or no choice? I buy that.Because it's always a good idea to be as polarizing as possible?

Anyway, I heard about this case on the television machine, and I was wondering what the "must be capable of surviving outside the mother's womb" crowd thought about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6377639.stm

[Warriorbird]

This procedure is both rarely performed and typically performed to save the life of a mother. In the effort to 'legislate against murder" the ban does precisely that. This even applies to rape and incest and unavoidable circumstances like that.

However, none of these things (or the procedure) are likely or frequent. It's just more people trying to mess around with other people's bodies in any way they can. A simple alternative would've been provisions for a mother's health/circumstances of the pregnancy. It isn't there.

[ElanthianSiren]

This procedure is both rarely performed and typically performed to save the life of a mother. In the effort to 'legislate against murder" the ban does precisely that. This even applies to rape and incest and unavoidable circumstances like that.

However, none of these things (or the procedure) are likely or frequent. It's just more people trying to mess around with other people's bodies in any way they can. A simple alternative would've been provisions for a mother's health/circumstances of the pregnancy. It isn't there.

Yeah, Kennedy pretty much made that clear when he said that they may appeal the ruling every time a woman DIES because this procedure wasn't enacted (due to the not having sufficient clauses about the life of the mother).

-Makes everyone that suffers from any kind of condition that may suddenly turn extremely exacerbated by pregnancy feel great.

[Stanley Burrell]

Because it's always a good idea to be as polarizing as possible?

Anyway, I heard about this case on the television machine, and I was wondering what the "must be capable of surviving outside the mother's womb" crowd thought about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6377639.stm

Lemme put it like this:

You won't find a news source citing the miracles of fatal childbirth.

I've been inside the coroner's office before. The smell of death from an actual, life-sized human being is something that'll help you keep off a few pounds.

The anti-Choice mentality, in general, is what's going to continue putting this country's intelligence on the backburner and in the shadow of other first world nations, always by direct comparison to said mentality, moreso than just about anything else in the world.

[Keller]

Looks like they did a pretty shitty job presenting evidence of that.


On this issue I listen to OBGYNs and not lawyers. Sorry.

[Back]

Because it's always a good idea to be as polarizing as possible?

No, the idea is not to be judgmental.

[Faent]

It is blatantly obvious that a partial birth abortion may be required, in some cases, to save the life of a woman. It is also blatantly obvious that, in some cases, it may be the best or safest procedure. If you deny this, your head is stuck hopelessly deep in the mud (probably because you are blinded by severe bias). The court has therefore passed legislation that will very likely result in the death of some number of women and no small amount of emotional strain for a much larger number. If you favor the court's ruling, and you have the capacity for intellectual honesty, then you must think that passing legislation which i) decreases the chances of survival for at least some women, ii) will result in the death of at least some women, and iii) will cause immense emotion strain on a larger number of women is worth it because of the great number of unjust acts the legislation will prevent.

In any case, stop babbling like a fundamentalist zealot with no brain about how partial birth abortion is "never medically necessary" or "never the best/safest procedure for a woman" and own up to your belief that it's ok to rape a few people for what you take to be the greater good. In short, please stop being lying pansies about your consequentialism. =)

[Shari]

Someone clarify this for me. It completely bans it after 12 weeks? What if they're sure that the woman will die if she doesn't have an abortion? Is she basically a dead woman walking?

[Gan]

It is easy to call this a religious issue and thus call it unconstitutional, but it really is a matter of biology. A human being, regardless of his/her developmental stage, is a human being. You have the right to not get pregnant. You don't have the right to get pregnant and kill someone for it.

I think thats where the debate is divided, as in the viability of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby. (I think I got that in chrono order).

The religious side says the zygote is a person (a human) upon conception. The medical community says its not a 'human' until its viable (medically or naturally).

So if we determine, through laws, that the 'zygote' is a human, then whats to stop a zealous prosecutor from going after a would be mother who miscarries her child from auspicious circumstances?

Furthermore at what point does the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby's right to live supercede the woman/host's right to live? Who determines who lives and who does not in the cases where its exclusive? Which is considered a stand alone organizim? The mom? (because she can live without the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby) or the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby?

I personally think the woman's right to choose, which to me is a constitutional right, supercedes the right of the baby, up until the point where the baby is a viable human that can sustain efforts of life support through interventional means or through natural means (hospital or naturally). The question is when is that possible and is this a shrinking timeline with the ever advancing changes in medical technology? I know neo-natal ICU's here in Houston can sustain life outisde the womb at ~21 weeks or thats what I've been advised through recent conversations.

[Ilvane]

I saw the percentage of procedures this affects. It is 1.4% of all abortions performed in the US.

Angela

[Gan]

Here's more background on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as passed by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

[Gan]

I saw the percentage of procedures this affects. It is 1.4% of all abortions performed in the US.

Angela

Here's more data:

CONTEXT: Nearly half of unintended pregnancies and more than one-fifth of all pregnancies in the United States end in abortion. No nationally representative statistics on abortion incidence or on the universe of abortion providers have been available since 1996.

METHODS: In 2001-2002, The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) conducted its 13th survey of all known U.S. abortion providers, collecting information for 1999, 2000 and the first half of 2001. Trends were calculated by comparing the survey results with data from previous AGI surveys.

RESULTS: From 1996 to 2000, the number of abortions fell by 3% to 1.31 million, and the abortion rate declined 5% to 21.3 per 1,000 women 15-44. (In comparison, the rate declined 12% between 1992 and 1996.) The abortion ratio in 2000 was 24.5 per 100 pregnancies ending in abortion or live birth, 5% lower than in 1996. The number of abortion providers decreased by 11% to 1,819 (46% were clinics, 33% hospitals and 21% physicians' offices); clinics provided 93% of all abortions in 2000. In that year, 34% of women aged 15-44 lived in the 87% of counties with no provider, and 86 of the nation's 276 metropolitan areas had no provider.

About 600 providers performed an estimated 37,000 early medical abortions during the first six months of 2001; these procedures represented approximately 6% of all abortions during that period. Abortions performed by dilation and extraction were estimated to account for 0.17% of all abortions in 2000.

CONCLUSIONS: Abortion incidence and the number of abortion providers continued to decline during the late 1990s but at a slower rate than earlier in the decade. Medical abortion began to play a small but significant role in abortion provision.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3500603.html
____________________________________________

Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction#_note-0) is the method being banned by Congress and upheld as legal by the USC.

[CrystalTears]

It is blatantly obvious that a partial birth abortion may be required, in some cases, to save the life of a woman.
The ban doesn't apply when the mother's life is in danger, so I decided to not bother with the rest of your rant against people who are opposed to this procedure. :P

[Gan]

The ban doesn't apply when the mother's life is in danger, so I decided to not bother with the rest of your rant against people who are opposed to this procedure. :P

Yea, he obviously didnt see this part of the statute... or didnt realize it was there.



This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

[Faent]

>>The ban doesn't apply when the mother's life is in danger...

Really? I thought most of the uproar was because this clause had been dropped. Guess I was wrong.

[Hulkein]

On this issue I listen to OBGYNs and not lawyers. Sorry.

That's who I was referring to. I assume the lawyers used expert witnesses/testimony. They must not have been persuasive enough (or at all).

[TheEschaton]

I haven't read the opinion yet (it's in my inbox, my pro-life friend sent it to me), but what he was gloating about (he's also a law student) was that Kennedy's opinion seemed to leave open the possibility of a review of Casey.

-TheE-

[Stanley Burrell]

The religious side says the zygote is a person (a human) upon conception. The medical community says its not a 'human' until its viable (medically or naturally).

That would be an advancement.

Try sheepskinophobia.

[ElanthianSiren]

The ban doesn't apply when the mother's life is in danger, so I decided to not bother with the rest of your rant against people who are opposed to this procedure. :P

O'RLLY?



Justices uphold abortion procedure ban By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Apr 19, 2:36 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's new conservative majority gave anti-abortion forces a landmark victory Wednesday in a 5-4 decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure nationwide and sets the stage for further restrictions.

It was a long-awaited and resounding win that abortion opponents had hoped to gain from a court pushed to the right by President Bush's appointees.

For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices said the Constitution permits a nationwide prohibition on a specific abortion method. The court's liberal justices, in dissent, said the ruling chipped away at abortion rights.

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

Siding with Kennedy were Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.

Doctors who violate the law could face up to two years in federal prison. The law has not taken effect, pending the outcome of the legal fight.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court."

Dr. LeRoy Carhart, the Bellevue, Neb., doctor who challenged the federal ban, said, "I am afraid the Supreme Court has just opened the door to an all-out assault on" the 1973 ruling in Roe. Wade.

The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide.

Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life."

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy said alternate, more widely used procedures remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

"I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

Jay Sekulow, a prominent abortion opponent who is chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said, "This is the most monumental win on the abortion issue that we have ever had."

Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them." She had argued that point before the justices.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures — the medical term most often used by doctors — were performed in 2000, the latest figures available.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

"Today's decision is alarming," Ginsburg wrote in dissent for the court's liberal bloc. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions in a challenge also brought by Carhart. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision in part because it lacked a health exception.

The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.

But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.

Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.

Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure within the medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty as a reason to allow the disputed procedure.

"The medical uncertainty over whether the Act's prohibition creates significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude ... that the Act does not impose an undue burden," Kennedy said Wednesday.

While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.

The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

[CrystalTears]

Then there are sources that are incorrect because they stated that the clause was added.

[ElanthianSiren]

Who did?

[CrystalTears]

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm


`Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
If that section was removed, then it wasn't clear to me.

[ElanthianSiren]

It's not life, it's health, as far as I'm aware; I'll agree that the Kennedy footnote of appealing with death is kind of odd since there is a life clause, but there is not a health clause. So if having a fetus means you lose the function of your KIDNEYS and require dialysis for the rest of your life, that's okay. It's cool to take that decision away from someone, is what this law argues. Roberts was nailing it IMO in 2006 when he tried to investigate whether these methods were safer than others. For some reason, it was noted that at times they definitely can be and be necessary, but that was overlooked.

The state is deciding FOR financial burden because in health matters, when this procedure would be necessary, (and nobody is arguing it should be just done every day for the hell of it), it will always be in the instance of health complications that could easily result in 1. exacerbated medical problems 2. death from point 1. That's what's alarming people.

[CrystalTears]

Life, that's what I was referring to, which you debunked with health issues.

I don't like the procedure, never did since I first heard about it, never will. I'm sorry if I'll be that person that won't ever be convinced that killing an unborn child in this manner is a good thing for anyone.

This is where I bow out of this conversation before I get emotional. I already got teared up thinking about it.

[Gan]

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm


If that section was removed, then it wasn't clear to me.


It was not removed. You cited the actual law. ES cited the court opinion upholding the law. There's a difference.

[Skeeter]

I support full term abortions. I think some of you would definately benefit from them.

[ElanthianSiren]

What is the difference between life and health? The law is bottom line irresponsible since it assumes if you won't die in childbirth, it's fine. There are many medical conditions that are incredibly exacerbated with child birth that can result in death quite easily after the fact or even before. Health is a much harder standard to prove, and the court knows this. If you die, well it's pointless to argue really. Why do we want to wait until people experience extremely debilitating complications (that generally eventually claim their lives like renal failure) to say, "Wow...this practice is wrong"?

I'm sorry that it is that way, but it is. I wish there was a way to plan for everything that might happen in the course of a pregnancy, but there isn't. That uncertainty in the face of pre-existing and potential health problems is why some people choose to be very stringent with regard to sexual practice. I simply don't believe we can or should put that kind of burden on everyone though I'm happy to address it for myself and my better-sleeping-at-nightness.

Gan is right.

[Stanley Burrell]

What is the difference between life and health? The law is bottom line irresponsible since it assumes if you won't die in childbirth, it's fine. There are many medical conditions that are incredibly exacerbated with child birth that can result in death quite easily after the fact or even before. Life is a much harder standard to prove, and the court knows this. If you die, well it's pointless to argue really. Why do we want to wait until people experience extremely debilitating complications (that generally eventually claim their lives like renal failure) to say, "Wow...this practice is wrong"?

I'm sorry that it is that way, but it is. I wish there was a way to plan for everything that might happen in the course of a pregnancy, but there isn't. That uncertainty in the face of pre-existing and potential health problems is why some people choose to be very stringent with regard to sexual practice. I simply don't believe we can or should put that kind of burden on everyone though I'm happy to address it for myself and my better-sleeping-at-nightness.

...Because "preeclampsia" is even harder to pronounce than nuke-u-lar? ;)

[Gan]

...Because "preeclampsia" is even harder to pronounce than nuke-u-lar? ;)

Not to mention Ectopic.

[ElanthianSiren]

...Because "preeclampsia" is even harder to pronounce than nuke-u-lar? ;)

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd how.

[Skirmisher]

What is the difference between life and health? The law is bottom line irresponsible since it assumes if you won't die in childbirth, it's fine. There are many medical conditions that are incredibly exacerbated with child birth that can result in death quite easily after the fact or even before. Health is a much harder standard to prove, and the court knows this. If you die, well it's pointless to argue really.


This somehow calls to mind the old water test they used to have for suspected witches.

Well, if you sank and drowned before being pulled up after being bound and tossed in then you were proclaimed innocent, if a little dead. If you didnt sink, then they hung you.

[Parkbandit]

The fact that the way this abortion is done.. to skirt the law.. makes it a fucking barbaric practice imo.

The doctor turns the baby to come out breech.. they induce the mother to give birth, then while the baby is halfway out (but the head is still inside) they kill it. I guess once the head comes out, it automatically has some rights to life... so the Doctor takes every precaution to avoid that ever happening.

Sorry.. late term abortions are not the same as wearing a condom.. but some mothers treat them as such. I'm a big proponent of woman's choice, but this just crosses the line for me.

[ElanthianSiren]

Sorry.. late term abortions are not the same as wearing a condom.. but some mothers treat them as such. I'm a big proponent of woman's choice, but this just crosses the line for me.

Source please...especially for the bolded part. I love when people start talking about abortion as if it isn't psychologically devestating for the woman. Keep in mind that you're talking about a procedure that is 1. used rarely 2. used in instances where the mother's health is in question 3. evaluated by a medical professional before its deemed a necessity.

Edited to add: If you want a source on those three comments, read a transcript of the 2006 arguments before the supreme court at the onset of this thing.

[Stanley Burrell]

Don't y'all have some pro-lifing to do by bombing a Planned Parenthood? C'mon, hup to already.

In all fairness, having the cock should exempt me from this argument entirely.

[Parkbandit]

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd how.

Source please.

[Parkbandit]

-Makes everyone that suffers from any kind of condition that may suddenly turn extremely exacerbated by pregnancy feel great.

Source please.

[Stanley Burrell]

I know it might be difficult for you at the tender age of old, but please try not to be a pedantic moron.

[Hulkein]

In all fairness, having the cock should exempt me from this argument entirely.

More evidence of your asinine reasoning.

[Stanley Burrell]

More evidence of your asinine reasoning.

Opening your mouth makes you an asinine hypocrite in one way or another. What's your point?

[Hulkein]

Good one!

[ElanthianSiren]

Source please.

I will do you the favor of comparing the two statements.




-Makes everyone that suffers from any kind of condition that may suddenly turn extremely exacerbated by pregnancy feel great.

Now, if you can't recognize sarcasm, you're a little further along than I thought. If a two-way statement doesn't imply A, and the only other option is B, what do you think the statement implies?

What qualifies me to say this decision makes at least one person that might experience such problems with a pregnancy uncomfortable? Let's see, it might be the doctor advice that said pregnancy for me would equate to a less than pleasant end. So, there's your source. I only need one person to prove my opinion and that person is me.

Now, let's look at your statement:


Sorry.. late term abortions are not the same as wearing a condom.. but some mothers treat them as such.

Did your mother abort you or your brothers or sisters, or did she act as if she should have been wearing a condom? None of us wants to speculate on what should have happened, but again, where is your source? Where is this group of women just totally ignoring the idea of $7.00 packs of rubbers in lieu of costly abortions? Where are all these baby killers with frothing red fangs hissing, "I'm bored. What shall I do? I'm gonna kill some babies today!!!"?

You say you're pro choice, but you are still using pro life rhetoric to support your conclusions. The abortion as a means of everyday birth control is a pretty common play from that book. If you want to have a discussion, including actual medical facts (see Ganalon's post of later term abortion statistics) and less broad generalizations, we can do just that. If you want to spew inflamatory rhetoric from the pro life playbook, I'm going to gracefully end this with a fuck you and goodbye. The ball's in your court.

[Parkbandit]

I know it might be difficult for you at the tender age of old, but please try not to be a pedantic moron.

Haha.. this coming from you? Please bitch.

Maybe you should run along and steal some more money from your parents for your next high... then go clean for a couple days.. then fall off the wagon.

Seriously, you should stfu regarding anything close to moronic. Talking about abortions.. I wonder what your mommy's choice would have been knowing how pathetic you turned out.

Hindsite is 20/20..

[Stanley Burrell]

Good one!

:heart:

[Parkbandit]

I I'm going to gracefully end this with a fuck you and goodbye. The ball's in your court.

Fuck off back. Slammed.

Winner

[Latrinsorm]

I could see PB pulling a Tyrus Thomas, only with a hip (or two).

[Stanley Burrell]

Haha.. this coming from you? Please bitch.

Maybe you should run along and steal some more money from your parents for your next high... then go clean for a couple days.. then fall off the wagon.

Seriously, you should stfu regarding anything close to moronic. Talking about abortions.. I wonder what your mommy's choice would have been knowing how pathetic you turned out.

Hindsite is 20/20..

Okay, seriously, this has gone on long enough:

#A) Stop trying to say mean things to me so that you can hurt my feelings and back me into the corner with these terrible, horrible personal insults geared at me on this weblog.

2) Too bad wire hangers hadn't even been INVENTED when you came out yo mama's prehistoric dinosaur pussy. That cavebitch should've improvised some metallurgy on the realz.


I could see PB pulling a Tyrus Thomas, only with a hip (or two).

Dunno 'bout T. Thomas, but PB could make the Isaiah Thomas draft pick like ::three snaps and a Z::

[Harli]

All i have to say is what right does anyone have to tell me what the fuck i can do with my body. I could care less what the person next to me belives in, that is their right to think what they want. All i ask is not to be forced to belive in what you do. Nobody, and i mean nobody has the right to tell me what i can and cannot do with my body and the choices i make. Its my life. I choose what I'm going to make of it, i dont need a person in Washington D.C or Iowa telling me what "I'm allowed to do".

[Bobmuhthol]

That exact same argument can be made by replacing "body" with "money" and making it about paying taxes.

And it's a poor one.

[Gan]

All i have to say is what right does anyone have to tell me what the fuck i can do with my body. I could care less what the person next to me belives in, that is their right to think what they want. All i ask is not to be forced to belive in what you do. Nobody, and i mean nobody has the right to tell me what i can and cannot do with my body and the choices i make. Its my life. I choose what I'm going to make of it, i dont need a person in Washington D.C or Iowa telling me what "I'm allowed to do".

I agree with you, right up until the point of viability. Then its no longer just your body, but someone elses too.

[Hulkein]

All i have to say is what right does anyone have to tell me what the fuck i can do with my body. I could care less what the person next to me belives in, that is their right to think what they want. All i ask is not to be forced to belive in what you do. Nobody, and i mean nobody has the right to tell me what i can and cannot do with my body and the choices i make. Its my life. I choose what I'm going to make of it, i dont need a person in Washington D.C or Iowa telling me what "I'm allowed to do".

It's not your 'body' that is having its brain vacuumed out of a skull and thrown in the trash.

[Parkbandit]

Okay, seriously, this has gone on long enough:

#A) Stop trying to say mean things to me so that you can hurt my feelings and back me into the corner with these terrible, horrible personal insults geared at me on this weblog.

2) Too bad wire hangers hadn't even been INVENTED when you came out yo mama's prehistoric dinosaur pussy. That cavebitch should've improvised some metallurgy on the realz.



Dunno 'bout T. Thomas, but PB could make the Isaiah Thomas draft pick like ::three snaps and a Z::

Holy shit.. I actually understood one of your posts.. and it made me laugh.

Winner.

[Warriorbird]

"It's not your 'body' that is having its brain vacuumed out of a skull and thrown in the trash."

Ahhh. Every sperm is indeed sacred. There has to be a division or you have to never have non procreative sex.

[Stanley Burrell]

Holy shit.. I actually understood one of your posts.. and it made me laugh.

Winner.

Whaaa... I am more weirded out now than I have ever been in my entire life, thanks :-\

[Latrinsorm]

All i have to say is what right does anyone have to tell me what the fuck i can do with my body.That's exactly true! You have no right to tell a human being what to do with his or her body, so you certainly can't say "I'm going to stick this thing in your head and kill you", right?
There has to be a division or you have to never have non procreative sex.Because sperms have brains...............................

[Bobmuhthol]

Yeah, kind of.

[Artha]

They've got nucleii, but that's hardly a brain.

[Sean of the Thread]

Fuck the brain.. does it have a soul?

[Bartlett]

The "using abortion like a condom" comment went to the extreme on both sides. There is likely a small minority of people who will just get pregnant and have an abortion, there are plenty of people who have been repeat recipients of their right to murder and that is at least evidence that they have no feeling toward their unborn children. More commonly, people are acting irresponsibly and get pregnant. There are consequences for your actions whether you like it or not. Someone else here also mentioned the huge emotional and psychological distress a woman endures after murdering their child. This is something the feminist movement and supporters of abortion don't want you to know. Human beings generally know right from wrong, and the majority of women who get abortions don't feel great about it. There are also numerous health risks for a healthy woman if they have an abortion.

13 week old human:
http://www.robynsnest.com/images/The%20embryo%20takes%20shape.jpg

By 14 weeks there are facial features and fingerprints. That is what helped this legislation in my opinion. It is starting to look like a kid, so less folks are going to follow the current medical definition of what a human life is. I know it would be pointless to point out any areas in history when "science" was used to justify horrible things being done to human beings, so I won't bother. Watch a documentary about penguins. The bird in the fertilized egg is referred to as a penguin. Why are humans not afforded the same courtesy?

"It's my body!" As pointed out, it is also someone else's body, who you find to be a nuisance. The majority of people don't have abortions for health reasons. They have them because they "just can't handle having a kid right now." If an unborn child were hurting the mother, I expect the doctors to do what is in the best interest of their patients. If you mean that you don't want stretch marks, sorry, thats not sufficient. The two major reasons are money and selfishness. Not good enough reasons for ending the life of another human being in my opinion.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<People don't have abortions for health reasons.>>

Did you seriously just say this?

[Bartlett]

People don't generally have them for health reasons is what I meant to say. I highly doubt the majority of abortions are medically necessary.

[Parkbandit]

People don't generally have them for health reasons is what I meant to say. I highly doubt the majority of abortions are medically necessary.


I'll play the role of ES and post "SOURCE!"

[TheSmooth1]

Something that hasn't even been born yet doesn't have a "life".

As if there aren't enough people in the world already.

[Harli]

"It's not your 'body' that is having its brain vacuumed out of a skull and thrown in the trash."
Until it can live on its own ,its living off my body ,so yes i belive i have a right to do what i want. Before you get your panties in a bunch, im not saying that i agree with using abortion as birth control. I have a little girl that i love very much but i was lucky and i got to choose when i brought her into this world. Some people dont get that option and some just plain dont want it.
What i want to know is what gave you (and i mean the general you, not you personally) to tell me what i can and can not do. When you can explain why its ok for people to push their moral compass on someone else then maybe i could understand your argument.
I feel that the level of passion and dedication these people are pushing towards this topic should go towards education people on birthcontrol so maybe there will be fewer aborations, than on trying to force your views down someones else's throat.

[Harli]

That exact same argument can be made by replacing "body" with "money" and making it about paying taxes.

And it's a poor one.

Thats apples and oranges. Taxes go to the goverment to pay for the society we live in. My body last time i checked was mine, i could chose not to work and pay taxes or i could.

[Latrinsorm]

Until it can live on its ownSo if the baby (God forbid!) has some sort of muscular dystrophy and won't ever be able to live on "its" own, are we permitted to kill "it" at any point in "its" life?
When you can explain why its ok for people to push their moral compass on someone else then maybe i could understand your argument.That would be "the society we live in." What made it ok for the Northern aggressors to push their "moral compass" on the South?

The only way to coherently talk about this is to decide whether a fetus is a person, deserving legal protections, and have to be careful to be coherent when defining a person as well. If you want to be incoherent, maybe you can drag PB in here, I don't know.

[Harli]

So if the baby (God forbid!) has some sort of muscular dystrophy and won't ever be able to live on "its" own, are we permitted to kill "it" at any point in "its" life?That would be "the society we live in." What made it ok for the Northern aggressors to push their "moral compass" on the South?

The only way to coherently talk about this is to decide whether a fetus is a person, deserving legal protections, and have to be careful to be coherent when defining a person as well. If you want to be incoherent, maybe you can drag PB in here, I don't know.


Said baby would already be viable outside the mothers womb. I dont see what that has to do with making the choice for me weither or not i should keep a pregnancy i dont want. Im not saying i agree with people getting abortions that late or that people should use abortions except in the most dire situations i.e. rape, or life threating to the mother. What i have issue with is someone telling me that they think its wrong so i shouldnt do it. Whats next?

I thought i was being coherent so im sorry if you didnt understand my point, its plainly this-its my body, i make the choices, nobody has a right to tell me what i can and cannot do with my body. Do i think this subject is wrong, hell yes. Do i think people should wear a condom so this doesnt happen or at least pay attention so they can take the morning after pill if they slip up, hell yes. Do i think anyone has a right to tell me what i can do to my own body, HELL NO.

The courts have already decided when a baby is a person, that is why its murder to kill a fetus that is over that limit even if the baby hasnt been born. The argument about slavery is once again apples and oranges, those were grown people that were sold and taken from their home. What im arguing is not weither it's right or wrong, what im arguing about is that i have to a choice to be right or wrong and they are trying to take that away from all women.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'll play the role of ES and post "SOURCE!"

And for that, you deserve a good pat on the head. I knew you could come around to standards of debate.

Now, I'd actually have no problem with this law if it had exception for life and health. Roe isn't what's being discussed here.

[ElanthianSiren]

For Bartlett: do you honestly believe that it's impossible in the entire US that there might be a reasonable number of pregnancies a year that require immediate removal either because 1. the doctor decides that something's wrong with the fetus and dismemberment and extraction within the womb might cause steralization? 2. the fetus is risky to the woman's health with a low probability of survival for either the mother or the child? (See Acute Renal Failure, hydro-cephalis etc).

If you answer no, you are essentially saying this law is overreaching.

Again, this law is NOT an overturn of Roe; it's an entirely separate act. The arguments of Roe should not be appearing here, unless you're saying that women are regularly undergoing this process (and doctors are recommending it) carrying totally healthy, full term, viable babies.

[TheEschaton]

Just to play devil's advocate (I never know where I'm going to fall on the abortion debate on any given day), for Harli:

What's the difference between a premature baby born at 6 months and kept in NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit), and a 6 month old "fetus" which is partially born, then aborted by having its skull crushed?

Moreover, if you're going to make the whole "viable" argument, preemies aren't viable. In fact, full term babies aren't viable either, they need a mother to take care of them. None of us were able to survive on our own at birth, whcih is what viability is. The difference is our mothers cared for us (or someone did, at least). Why does lack of viability (which is a vague, undefined concept) support abortion?

-TheE-

[Bartlett]

For Bartlett: do you honestly believe that it's impossible in the entire US that there might be a reasonable number of pregnancies a year that require immediate removal either because 1. the doctor decides that something's wrong with the fetus and dismemberment and extraction within the womb might cause steralization? 2. the fetus is risky to the woman's health with a low probability of survival for either the mother or the child? (See Acute Renal Failure, hydro-cephalis etc).

If you answer no, you are essentially saying this law is overreaching.

Again, this law is NOT an overturn of Roe; it's an entirely separate act. The arguments of Roe should not be appearing here, unless you're saying that women are regularly undergoing this process (and doctors are recommending it) carrying totally healthy, full term, viable babies.

I have no reason to think that a doctor would allow a patient to become deathly ill on account of this law. It was enacted when? 2003? How many women have been heavily debilitated or killed as a result of this legislation? If the number was even 1, the law would have most likely been successfully overturned. If the child is doing serious enough damage to a mother, and this procedure ends up being the last bastion of hope, I fully believe it will be carried out, which is why there is a clause saying this will not affect life/death situations.

The only reason I can see for not putting in "health problems" is because that would cause debate over how serious an issue has to be. Morning sickness for instance, is a health problem related to pregnancy. It is hardly life threatening. If a life threatening (using a use of force definition of death or [B]serious[B/] bodily harm) condition exists, I expect the doctor to act in the best interest of his patient, and this law does not exclude it. Proponents of abortion will always take the argument to life threatening situation, but nobody (read almost nobody, because I am sure someone probably is) on the other side is arguing against that.

If siamese twins are born, and at some point one of them starts sucking the life out of the other, they will be seperated and one will die. Nobody (again, mostly nobody) is gonna cry murder, even though the life of that human being was taken. I am guessing that there is no law on the books authorizing the killing of a conjoined twin, because there doesn't need to be one.

The rest of the post was an extension to this discussion where we are finding many abortion fans to be against this procedure because the child looks like a child to the naked eye, and people are unable to convince themselves that the person being killed is not a person. The image I posted is not blown up. At that age, the child is 3-4 inches long, actually bigger than that picture.

[Jazuela]

In all the discussion here (and in other forums and in the news media) I've read, there's one thing missing from the debate. If someone can point me to this, I'd appreciate it.

If a woman is at the stage of pregnancy where the fetus has the *capacity* of viability (barring anomalies, disease, and other abnormal, severe problems such as brain-stems missing or not connected, etc)...then instead of aborting, why not just do a C-section? If the woman is in deep enough shit that her unborn child would cause her own death if she delivered vaginally, then why would the late-term abortion techniques even be desireable? Slice in, grab the kid and placenta, stitch back up, sedate for a couple of days, and voila - problem solved.

If I was pregnant and learned in my 3rd trimester that something was seriously wrong and that I might die if I tried to actually have the baby, I'd be at the hospital pronto begging for a c-section. That way, the chance for myself, and the baby, to survive would be reasonable. The other way, I might live, but the baby certainly would not. And even with this "brain sucking" method there's no guarantee the mother would live through it, so why even try that method?

In the early stages of the 2nd trimester, that kid would not survive even if it was 100% healthy and delivered via c-section, so it seems pointless to even debate the issue. At 13 weeks it is not a person. It's a vaguely humanoid growth which is completely and totally reliant on the host for oxygen, nourishment, and even movement. Detached from the host it would die, no matter its state of health at the time of detachment. Currently we have no method of transplanting fetuses from one womb to another. If the anti-abortionists want to get working on that idea, I'd say let's give it a shot. But until then, that 13-week-old growth is a growth, and if a woman doesn't want it there, she should retain the right to have it removed. Fingerprints and all.

[Gan]

Viability as in being able to sustain life, growth, and development outside the womb. The duration of time is inconsequential. Medical technology currently sustains this at 20 weeks with successful results.

Prior to that, the organism that eventually will be a human, will not survive nor grow/develop into a human. Ergo it is not a human. Having the potential does not mean it is.

Also, just because it looks like a human doesnt mean it is one. Thats about as unscientific as you can get with regards to the medical debate of human viability.

The whole right to life thing can also be translated into other arguments such as the death penalty, war, and removal from life support for terminal or comatose patients. As medical technology continues to improve, the more heroic measures can be taken to prolong or end or even create life of humans. At what point should man stop? At what point should man's spiritual beliefs override their capacity for the advancement of the human race?

The premise of viability is not a static one. As technology improves, the viability of a fetus to successfully grow and develop into a human being will be medically possible at points less than 20 weeks. I imagine that it will someday in the far future not even require the human female body as a host period. Imagine that ladies. You could put your soon to be kid's womb/aquarium on the shelf right next to your fish. ;) (Buck Rogers in the 25th century anyone?)

However, until that time. Laws should follow the science of the issue and not the 'spiritual, moral, or religious' interpretation of the issue. Lets stick to the facts when deciding about the rights of humans and when a human actually is one.

[Gan]

Note that this debate, until Jazuela's post, did not even encroach the issue of selective reduction and abortion due to deformaties of the fetus for survivability and quality of life reasons. However, these issues can be screened through ultrasound and amnio techniques well before the end of teh 2nd trimester.

[ElanthianSiren]

Saying: there's a provision for life, so it's okay is basically assuming that this determination (since this is now a law), doesn't include litigation. From everything I've read, the woman will have to PROVE in court delivery is a danger to her life without a health clause. I don't have that much faith in the expediance of the US court system to say I believe those claims are going to go through quickly enough at the required time frame we're talking about. Again, I believe far too many people are looking at this as a method of every day abortion, instead of the emergency provision it should be.

I agree with Jaz's position actually. If it's a healthy baby, do a c-section. Get it out and put it up for adoption, keep it, or do whatever you're going to do. The problem is, sometimes the health conditions of the mother can determine surgery to be extremely dangerous (see renal failure) or like in the case of hydrocelphalus, the womb can be so stretched that other methods of extraction will steralize the woman. In the case of eptopic pregnancies, development occurrs outside normal parameters in very tight areas (like the fallopian tubes/outside the uterus etc). If a surgeon goes in there and starts cutting to remove, he again risks steralizing and/or killing the woman. This is the reason the law was veto'd LAST time.

What I'm arguing is that this be legal and ACCESSIBLE under the most dire cases, where there is a severe problem with child delivery. If it was as simple as it being instantly accessible in cases of life, sure the life provision would be sufficient. Unfortunately, like I said and Kennedy affirmed, I believe I read that a woman will have to litigate. If a mother's life was gravely in danger, how exactly do you propose she litigate the unconstitutionality of this? One of the lawyers here can probably shed more light on law part of this for us. I'm a biotechnologist.

[Stanley Burrell]

Bartlett, you shithead:

Please repent several million Hail Marys for the poor, helpless erythrocytes murdered coldly the last time you had a nosebleed/period.

Latrin (crowd):

Anucleated non-haploid cell in vitro fertilization unless otherwise specified with the "potential for human life" clause. This is the crux of of the silly pro/anti-Choice argument.

I'm rooting for Clarence Thomas kicking the bucket when a liberal's in office.

[Latrinsorm]

Said baby would already be viable outside the mothers womb.What exactly do you mean by "viable"?
I thought i was being coherent so im sorry if you didnt understand my pointOh, it wasn't a problem of understanding. Your arguments are just not logically coherent. This is demonstrated by you saying (for instance):
The argument about slavery is once again apples and oranges, those were grown people that were sold and taken from their home.Whatever their differences, both situations are examples of one group of people pushing a certain claim (blacks are people, fetuses are people) on another group of people. The idea that we should always let people be able to choose what's right or wrong is incoherent: in both cases allowing them to choose the wrong path is allowing people to be enslaved (or terminated).
Laws should follow the science of the issue and not the 'spiritual, moral, or religious' interpretation of the issue. Lets stick to the facts when deciding about the rights of humans and when a human actually is one.I'm curious as to why you think (presumably medical) science is the most appropriate method of determing what a human is, rather than (for instance) philosophy. I'm also curious what your opinion of phrenology is.

I know it's fun to throw out science words, Stan, but can you at least make a complete sentence with them? I'd appreciate it. :)

[Warriorbird]

Because phrenology doesn't work we should clearly use religion to decide what humans are. Since Scientology is the best religion...we need to make Tom Cruise decide who humans are.

(Sometimes posting Stan style is fun. Stop...Hammer time!)

[Gan]

What exactly do you mean by "viable"?
Being able to sustain life with the purpose of growing into a functional human, outside the womb. You're being obtuse with this question. You know very well what 'viable' is and the context in which it is used in this debate.


I'm curious as to why you think (presumably medical) science is the most appropriate method of determing what a human is, rather than (for instance) philosophy. I'm also curious what your opinion of phrenology is.

If medicine is not the science capable of determining the ability to sustain life outside the womb with the intent of development into a living breathing human, then what is? Not to mention that as a person of 'science' one would figure that you would know why phrenology isnt applicable in this instance. You made me laugh with this question.

[Keller]

Is viability independant of medical technology?

If not, then what type of medical technology is acceptable?

If we create artificial wombs, is every egg excreted through a woman's menstrual cycle "viable"?

Edit: If not, why not? Is it because the woman gets to choose whether to inseminate the egg?

[Latrinsorm]

Being able to sustain life with the purpose of growing into a functional human, outside the womb. You're being obtuse with this question. You know very well what 'viable' is and the context in which it is used in this debate.I know what you and I mean by "viable", and I thought that was a fairly standard definition. I'm not sure what she means by it, which is why I asked (her).
If medicine is not the science capable of determining the ability to sustain life outside the womb with the intent of development into a living breathing human, then what is?You missed it, don't you see? I asked about "determining what a human is". If you presuppose that a human is a viable "living breathing human", then yes, obviously we'd want medicine to make that call. What I was asking was how you come to that presupposition (the definition of personhood). Phrenology was used (by some) to make (incorrect) distinctions between certain races, thus excluding them from the "human" aegis, hence my question. Just like everything else, science can be used to do some really crappy things to people.
Is viability independant of medical technology?I don't see how it can be, either from a metaphysical or epistemic sense. Here's what I mean by that disjunction: How many of us would have died in an influenza epidemic if not for medicine? How could we possibly know who would have?
If we create artificial wombs, is every egg excreted through a woman's menstrual cycle "viable"?It doesn't seem to be, unless we can make artificial sperm too. ("Artificial sperm" strikes me as a good way of showing the oddness of the artificial/natural distinction.)

[Gan]

Is viability independant of medical technology? After a certain point in time of the age of the fetus, yes.



If not, then what type of medical technology is acceptable?
Morally acceptable? Religiously acceptable? Scientifically acceptable? Socially acceptable? Politically acceptable? Pick one. ;)



If we create artificial wombs, is every egg excreted through a woman's menstrual cycle "viable"? Viable as an egg. However, its not fertilized nor is it developing/evolving on its own. Its homeostasis as an egg. No more, no less. A fertilized egg is another story.



Edit: If not, why not? Is it because the woman gets to choose whether to inseminate the egg?
Its her egg, her property, she can do with is as she wills since its not determined to be a viable independant organism classified as a human with inlieanable rights. Otherwise we would violate this argument every time we flushed the commode. :)

[Keller]

I think you missed the point, Gan.

What does viability mean? Does it include viable through scientific means? (Respirator, etc)

Then, additionally, at what level of scientific interaction is viability no longer . . . viable. Ie -- an egg is viable insomuchas we can inseminate it through scientific means, grow it through scientific means, and "carry" it to term through scientific means.

I'm no advancing the idea that women who expel unfertilized eggs should be deemed murderers -- but I am asking at what point is scientific interaction no longer available for viability?

[Harli]

I know what you and I mean by "viable", and I thought that was a fairly standard definition. I'm not sure what she means by it, which is why I asked (her).of showing the oddness of the artificial/natural distinction.)

[QUOTE=Ganalon;575469]Being able to sustain life with the purpose of growing into a functional human, outside the womb. You're being obtuse with this question. You know very well what 'viable' is and the context in which it is used in this debate.

That is exactly what i meant. Thank you Ganalon for explaining it much better than i obviously did.

Im not making an argument for this kind of abortion going main stream, and im sorry if that is what came across. The thing that worries me is that once you start throwing restrictions around then what is next? There are alot of people that think any kind of abortion is murder and that it should all be banned. I dont have the right to say what is right or wrong for anyone but me, all i ask is that i be given the choice to say what is right or wrong, for me.

[Latrinsorm]

Help me to understand, then. How is that definition of viability consistent with "Until it can live on its own ,its living off my body"? If you count living only with considerable amounts of medical support as living "on its own", how can you find it so distasteful to restrict partial birth abortions but not restrictions on similarly treating people as non-beings; for instance terminating the severely handicapped? All laws are restrictions on personal liberty, it's not at all clear what your basis is for determining why this is so egregious.

[Latrinsorm]

to the edit:

You're always allowed to say what's right and wrong for you. You're never allowed (in America) to say what's legal and illegal for you.

[Gan]

I think you missed the point, Gan.

What does viability mean? Does it include viable through scientific means? (Respirator, etc)

Then, additionally, at what level of scientific interaction is viability no longer . . . viable. Ie -- an egg is viable insomuchas we can inseminate it through scientific means, grow it through scientific means, and "carry" it to term through scientific means.

I'm no advancing the idea that women who expel unfertilized eggs should be deemed murderers -- but I am asking at what point is scientific interaction no longer available for viability?

Ahh.

I'm proposing the definition as applied to the viability of the fetus as being able to survive and sustain growth and development outside the womb with or without medical assistance. That is how I base my argument. I also *think* that is how the medical community bases their definition of viability based on my conversations with medical professionals.

[Gan]

Help me to understand, then. How is that definition of viability consistent with "Until it can live on its own ,its living off my body"? If you count living only with considerable amounts of medical support as living "on its own", how can you find it so distasteful to restrict partial birth abortions but not restrictions on similarly treating people as non-beings; for instance terminating the severely handicapped? All laws are restrictions on personal liberty, it's not at all clear what your basis is for determining why this is so egregious.

Because it requires a host. That host being another human with rights of their own.

[Gan]

to the edit:

You're always allowed to say what's right and wrong for you. You're never allowed (in America) to say what's legal and illegal for you.

Correct. You as an individual can only influence those individuals who make the laws that determine what is legal and illegal for you. This is normally done through voting.

[TheEschaton]

Then you're setting up a strawman argument. You're not saying there's a right to choose with some limitations, you're saying there's a right to choose only up to a point when science can make a baby at some regularly consistent rate.

Then, the artificial womb example DOES come into play. If science can medically support a fertilized egg outside the womb to survive and sustain growth, which it already can, is every fertilized egg supposed to be an exception to the right to choose?

Congratulations, you just took away the right to choose through the back door. This is why I say a right-to-choose argument can't have viability exceptions, because those exceptions, with the advancement of science, become the rule.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And the partially born aborted baby doesn't REQUIRE a host. It, like all preemies 5 months and older, could survive and sustain growth in an incubator.

-TheE-

[Gan]

And the partially born aborted baby doesn't REQUIRE a host. It, like all preemies 5 months and older, could survive and sustain growth in an incubator.

-TheE-

Thats why I support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and support the USC decision.

[Gan]

Then you're setting up a strawman argument. You're not saying there's a right to choose with some limitations, you're saying there's a right to choose only up to a point when science can make a baby at some regularly consistent rate.

Then, the artificial womb example DOES come into play. If science can medically support a fertilized egg outside the womb to survive and sustain growth, which it already can, is every fertilized egg supposed to be an exception to the right to choose?

Congratulations, you just took away the right to choose through the back door. This is why I say a right-to-choose argument can't have viability exceptions, because those exceptions, with the advancement of science, become the rule.

-TheE-

Whose to say that the day that when artificial wombs become the norm, that methods to prevent conception will also advance to the point that abortions will no longer be necessary?

Afterall they thought Buck Rogers landing on the moon in the early 1900's comic books was pure science fiction. ;) Who knew that in 1969 we made that a reality.

[TheEschaton]

So we should make law in the hopes that one day birth control will be effective enough that we'll never have a need for that law in the first place...


...right.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Nano-contraceptives in the tap water, man. 30 years, tops.

[Keller]

Nano-contraceptives in the tap water, man. 30 years, tops.


Then Children of Men 20 years after that.

[Gan]

So we should make law in the hopes that one day birth control will be effective enough that we'll never have a need for that law in the first place...


...right.

-TheE-


So its ok to use (actually re-use my own) a futuristic premise in your argument but not allow me to counter with one in mine?

:wtf:


PS. How many laws are you aware of that are based on yesterday's reality to the point at which they arent even applicable today?

By basing the law on the premise that it will advance at the same rate that technology will, in this case medical technology, then you are assured that the rights of a 'viable' human are not infringed upon. Imagine that, a law that progresses instead of regresses. Will it suck for the 'mothers'? Depends on how you look at it. They will either have to be proactive in preventing conception or 'family planning' if they do conceive within a shorter window of time. Or pay the cost of carrying the baby to term, inside or outside their body.

[TheEschaton]

...and thus further the inequality of the sexes...


that's why the right to choose is so important, you know.

[Gan]

...and thus further the inequality of the sexes...


that's why the right to choose is so important, you know.


I'm not saying that the right to choose isnt an option. I'm just saying that as life becomes more available through medical advancements then it should be given consideration. For someone who is so against the killing of other humans, it amazes me that you dont agree with the viability argument. Did you agree with the removal of life support from Terry Schiavo? Same argument, different end of the spectrum. Should we have terminated her life prematurely when we could sustain it through medical measures?

I personally think a woman's body is hers to do with as she pleases until it infringes upon the rights of another. Is it a fine line? You bet. Will politicians use push that line with test cases, precedence, and biased judges? You betcha. However, the fact remains that if the fetus is capable of sustaining life (medically or naturally) outside the womb then it should (IMO) be given due consideration as a human with all the available rights thereof.

I dont believe in the catholic or other religious premise that life 'begins' at conception. Otherwise we would be locking up women all day long for mistreating their bodies (knowingly and unknowingly) when they are pregnant resulting in miscarriage or abnormalities such as fetal alcohol syndrome. Throughout the first and halfway through the second trimester the zygote/fetus is a mass of tissue (like a tumor). Its not until that tissue can be sustained without the host that the argument for rights should take place.

Yet you have to give consideration to the concept that if the fetus can be without its host (mother) and still develop, grow, and become a functioning human then why not afford it the rights it legally deserves?

[TheEschaton]

I'm playing devil's advocate, I actually agree with the SC decision, just not it opening PP v. Casey up to review. ;)

It's an issue I waver on, though, so I always try and acknowledge the arguments on both sides.

Edit: This is where I have issue with your case:

Its not until that tissue can be sustained without the host that the argument for rights should take place.

With science, that 'tumor' can be sustained WITHOUT the host from pretty much the moment of conception. I mean, isn't this what a test tube baby is? The baby technically NEVER needs the mother, now thanks to the marvels of science.

So, if you use your "viability" argument to say "choice is restricted to when the zygote/fetus is VIABLE outside the 'host'", then that, technically, means abortion would be illegalized by your standard.

So how do you redraw your lline? What extent (or lack thereof) of medical intervention need there be before the baby can be considered human?


-theE-

[Jazuela]

A "test tube baby" is only the fertilization process. Once the embryo is fertilized it needs an appropriate host. So far science hasn't been able to create a suitable substitute for a womb. A "baby" does need a "mother" though science has created an atmosphere in which the baby does not need its own blood-relative; the fertilized embryo can be implanted into a different woman's womb and if all goes well, can thrive and grow and become a child.

To reiterate: Currently, an embryo, once fertilized, DOES need a female human's womb in order to grow.

[Gan]

Jazuela gets it. ;)



With science, that 'tumor' can be sustained WITHOUT the host from pretty much the moment of conception. I mean, isn't this what a test tube baby is? The baby technically NEVER needs the mother, now thanks to the marvels of science.

This is where you're getting it wrong.

[TheEschaton]

I stand corrected. :P

Hypothetical: An artificial womb is made, and it works. Is abortion then supposed to be illegal based on your viability argument?

-TheE-

[Gan]

I stand corrected. :P

Hypothetical: An artificial womb is made, and it works. Is abortion then supposed to be illegal based on your viability argument?

-TheE-

Hypothetical: Technology improves to the point where the abortion and termination of the fetus is illegal. Now the 'mother' who wishes to terminate faces the choice of carrying to term or paying for reimplantation into an artificial womb or surrogate. Ergo the rights of the viable zygote/embryo/fetus are not infringed upon since its a viable life.

Additional Hypothetical: Technology improves to the point where contraception techniques improve to 100% so the occurrence of an unwanted pregnancy ceases to exist. Ergo the medical practice of abortion is discontinued within the medical community.

[Parkbandit]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/hostage.gif

[Warriorbird]

Tasteless much?

[Parkbandit]

Not nearly as tasteless as an actual partial birth abortion... where they pull the fetus out feet first on purpose, then, while the head is still in the mother, take scissors and cut a hole in the base of the skull. Then, they vacuum out the fetus' 'brain'.. before pulling the fetus completely out.

Actually.. the cartoon is relatively tame in comparison.

[Warriorbird]

Right...and they try to do this all the time. Have you actually looked at the total number of partial birth abortions performed? Or did you just go directly to Operation Rescue and start staring vacantly?

[Hulkein]

"It's not your 'body' that is having its brain vacuumed out of a skull and thrown in the trash."

Ahhh. Every sperm is indeed sacred. There has to be a division or you have to never have non procreative sex.

Big difference between sperm and a viable child.

[Bobmuhthol]

Sperm aren't people. Eggs aren't people.

Zygotes are people. Try making a human with a haploid cell, LOL!

[Hulkein]

When you can explain why its ok for people to push their moral compass on someone else then maybe i could understand your argument.
I feel that the level of passion and dedication these people are pushing towards this topic should go towards education people on birthcontrol so maybe there will be fewer aborations, than on trying to force your views down someones else's throat.

You are retarded.

[Artha]

I feel that the level of passion and dedication these people are pushing towards this topic should go towards education people on birthcontrol so maybe there will be fewer aborations, than on trying to force your views down someones else's throat.
I want to have unprotected sex with every girl that can say yes. Don't you dare try to push your moral compass onto me with that 'education'.

[Parkbandit]

Right...and they try to do this all the time. Have you actually looked at the total number of partial birth abortions performed? Or did you just go directly to Operation Rescue and start staring vacantly?


Hahaha.. I knew someone would fall for it.

So how is this Supreme Court opinion the end of the Woman's rights.. if they perform so few of these procedures?

[Warriorbird]

Uhh...did I say it was? I just think that this is just digging for further possibilities to erode the ability to have an abortion. Given the rarity of this procedure and the fact that it is generally performed for the mother's health I don't think it is quite the "condom" you made it out to be.

[Harli]

You are retarded.

Because i have a point of view? Well then i guess i am along with a good number of folks. Thanks for pointing that out.:wtf2:

[Harli]

Just to play devil's advocate (I never know where I'm going to fall on the abortion debate on any given day), for Harli:

What's the difference between a premature baby born at 6 months and kept in NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit), and a 6 month old "fetus" which is partially born, then aborted by having its skull crushed?

Moreover, if you're going to make the whole "viable" argument, preemies aren't viable. In fact, full term babies aren't viable either, they need a mother to take care of them. None of us were able to survive on our own at birth, whcih is what viability is. The difference is our mothers cared for us (or someone did, at least). Why does lack of viability (which is a vague, undefined concept) support abortion?

-TheE-
Viable means it will be able to live outside the womb with or without medical support. The difference hopefully in the situation you described above will be that the baby that was unfortunatly aborted was either unable to support itself to full term or was a health risk to the mother. Once again im not saying that i support this procedure (which happens very rarely thankfully) but i dont think it should be banned.

God forbid we give people individual rights instead of letting goverments and corporations hold our hands every step of the way.

[Gan]

God forbid we give people individual rights instead of letting goverments and corporations hold our hands every step of the way.

You're still missing the fact that a viable fetus/baby has individual rights just the same as the mother/host. If the fetus/baby's viable, who's rights supercedes the other?

[Parkbandit]

Viable means it will be able to live outside the womb with or without medical support. The difference hopefully in the situation you described above will be that the baby that was unfortunatly aborted was either unable to support itself to full term or was a health risk to the mother. Once again im not saying that i support this procedure (which happens very rarely thankfully) but i dont think it should be banned.

God forbid we give people individual rights instead of letting goverments and corporations hold our hands every step of the way.

Since it's your kid, I will assume you believe you have the right to abuse and molest your kids? Why should Government be able to step in and tell you what to do! That was part of you, therefore you have all rights to them!

[Gan]

I'll take the Harli's premise a step further. Its your body, who cares if you abuse it with illicit drugs. The government should not be able to tell you what you can and cant do with your body, and with what substances.

Now take it a step further. Its your body - your life, if you choose to terminate it, then you should be able to anytime and anyway you so choose.

(just expounding on the theory of personal rights... ;) )

[Parkbandit]

Let's do away with suicide being against the law. Let's do away with DUI laws.. illegal drug laws..

These all infringe on the rights of the individuals! CURSE THE CORPORATIONS FOR KEEPING US DOWN AND TELLING US WHAT TO DO.

[xtc]

You're still missing the fact that a viable fetus/baby has individual rights just the same as the mother/host. If the fetus/baby's viable, who's rights supercedes the other?

In today's society the mother's rights supercedes the baby's....opps sorry fetus. I think people shouldn't be forced to use condoms or other methods of birth control. They should be allowed to have an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy, any restriction is a violation of their constitution rights, even if it does mean extracting the babies head..oops fetus and stabbing it at the stem of the brain.....which medical school teaches this procedure again? I mean come on it is just a lump of cells......right? Also people should be allowed to have as many abortions as they want. Why force someone to engage in birth control, it would infringe on their rights and freedoms. Forget the fact that Roe believes that it was the worst mistake of her life. Forget the fact that her lawyer lied. Forget the fact that one of the majority Judges in Roe vs Wade said he didn't believe the verdict would become a opening for unrestricted, plentiful, abortion on demand.

This latest verdict is a sham. There are a slew of medical cases where late term abortions are necessary...just none of them have been documented.

[Gan]

In today's society the mother's rights supercedes the baby's....opps sorry fetus.
So a mother can look over at her newborn baby and say, I dont want it, kill it please. And thats ok? Is there a sliding scale of rights that you can use to determine who has rights and who doesnt? My scale is that if the fetus/baby is viable then it has rights. Period. The mother forfeit having 'more' rights than the fetus/baby when she decided to get pregnant or wait as long as she did prior to her decision to abort at such a late term.

The rest of your paragraph was just plain silly, so I discarded it since its relevance to this thread is negligible.



This latest verdict is a sham. There are a slew of medical cases where late term abortions are necessary...just none of them have been documented.
Sources please. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass. And remember, you're only allotted 1 square of toilet paper for your mess.

If anything, the medical community is very well known for its documentation of any medical procedure that takes place. Unless you're talking about back alley procedures with coat hangers...

[Keller]

xtc was trying to be sarcastic.

As is the case with the remainder of his life, he failed.

[xtc]

xtc was trying to be sarcastic.

As is the case with the remainder of his life, he failed.

lol, it is just that Ganalon wasn't aware of the prior discussion we had a year or so ago about late term abortions.

Your comment makes me think you are still harbouring some resentment about it. Get over it.

[Harli]

Since it's your kid, I will assume you believe you have the right to abuse and molest your kids? Why should Government be able to step in and tell you what to do! That was part of you, therefore you have all rights to them!

That is not even close to what i was trying to say, and not to mention a little disturbing that you went there. I stated my points and if you want to nitpick to the point where you think you are right and my views are invaild that is your right as a thinking human being, just as it is my right to think the way i do.

[Keller]

lol, it is just that Ganalon wasn't aware of the prior discussion we had a year or so ago about late term abortions.

Your comment makes me think you are still harbouring some resentment about it. Get over it.

While your unreasonable and invasive ploys to "argue" the issue only further proved your idiocy, my opinions regarding your hodge-podge of logical fallacies and half-witted thoughts have been formed since then.

To be sure, however, your antics have prejudiced my perspective when reading any of your posts. But that's going to be true of anyone in your life. You don't get a blank slate each time you engage someone in a discussion.

In other news: you failed at sarcasm because you didn't use italics.

[Gan]

Does that mean I fell into the great abyss of sarchasm?

[xtc]

While your unreasonable and invasive ploys to "argue" the issue only further proved your idiocy, my opinions regarding your hodge-podge of logical fallacies and half-witted thoughts have been formed since then.

You use a lot of words to say very little. You only prove your own insecurities with this post.


To be sure, however, your antics have prejudiced my perspective when reading any of your posts. But that's going to be true of anyone in your life. You don't get a blank slate each time you engage someone in a discussion.

In other words you haven't gotten over it. You had better learn to suck it up or your professional life won't be pretty.


In other news: you failed at sarcasm because you didn't use italics.

Thanks for that revelation.

[Keller]

You use a lot of words to say very little. You only prove your own insecurities with this post.

Then let me break it down for you:

You were a dickhead in that thread but since then you've proven yourself to be an idiot as well.

[Bartlett]

Hypothetical: Technology improves to the point where the abortion and termination of the fetus is illegal. Now the 'mother' who wishes to terminate faces the choice of carrying to term or paying for reimplantation into an artificial womb or surrogate. Ergo the rights of the viable zygote/embryo/fetus are not infringed upon since its a viable life.

Additional Hypothetical: Technology improves to the point where contraception techniques improve to 100% so the occurrence of an unwanted pregnancy ceases to exist. Ergo the medical practice of abortion is discontinued within the medical community.

So you will define whether a human is a human based on our ability to keep them alive? We do have a way to keep them alive - in the womb of the mother who chose have sex. Which brings us to point 2 that in the majority of abortions are not performed for mothers who were utilizing reliable contraceptive methods.

[Warriorbird]

You presume that the mother chose to have sex.

[Gan]

So you will define whether a human is a human based on our ability to keep them alive? We do have a way to keep them alive - in the womb of the mother who chose have sex. Which brings us to point 2 that in the majority of abortions are not performed for mothers who were utilizing reliable contraceptive methods.

I'm defining a human as having the ability to remain alive absent the womb. Amazing how everyone else got that point, except you.

[Gan]

[Drew's post brought over from the abortion...terrorist thread.]



You're currently a collection of cells, pretty soon more cells will start dying in your body then are created, and you'll be on the long downhill until death. Once the specific cells have come together to create a human it will go from being rather simple, to it's peak (sometime in it's 20s or early 30s) and then slowly degenerate. Anyone who intervenes in this process has prematurely ended a life.

The semantics of convenience do nothing to assuage my great consternation at the fact that I live in this time of particular barbarism and there is, apparently, nothing effective I can do to end it.

You're a collection of cells that can not remain alive absent a host (the mother, the womb), ergo you're a parasite of a form. Until you, as a collection of cells, can sustain life absent the host (in another words, viable) then you arent really an independant life form. You arent really a human. Keep in mind this is scientific reasoning, not religious reasoning.

Until you are a viable human, you have no legal rights and therefore must surrender to the rights of the host. Its only when you gain rights that you can neutralize or offset the rights of the host.

[Latrinsorm]

The way you mash rights in with science is still very puzzling to me, Ganalon. I mean, you even make the statement that "That host being another human with rights of their own.", suggesting that the "parasite" is itself a human, sort of? I wonder if you could elaborate on why you think general viability is what gives us human rights.

[Back]

Let's do away with suicide being against the law.

Uh, far as I know it isn’t. And if it is, who are you going to arrest?

[CrystalTears]

In many states, committing suicide is a crime. Course if it's successful, there is no one to arrest, granted. However it's still a crime, just as assisted suicide is a crime.

[Landrion]

Uh, far as I know it isn’t. And if it is, who are you going to arrest?

In NJ at least, there was a mandatory period that you would be sent to a mental hospital for on a failed suicide attempt.

I dont know if you want to call that illegal or against the law.

[Parkbandit]

Uh, far as I know

I found the problem...

[Gan]

The way you mash rights in with science is still very puzzling to me, Ganalon. I mean, you even make the statement that "That host being another human with rights of their own.", suggesting that the "parasite" is itself a human, sort of? I wonder if you could elaborate on why you think general viability is what gives us human rights.

In this case I'm using viability as the ability to sustain life without the host, through natural or artificial means. This viability seperates the mass of cells and tissue from being a mass of cells and tissue and being a functional human capable of living and developing (growth), again without the host through natural or artificial means.

Ergo, if the fetus is viable, then it is human, therefore it has legal rights. Human rights are an abstract since there is no authority higher than humans to recognize that fact, so please dont assign my premise to human rights. I'm discussing the legal rights of a viable fetus here.

[Drew]

Fuck that shit, this ban is bullshit. These parasites in women's bellies are just a collection of cells. Instead of a partial birth abortion, I think we should pull the whole collection of cells out, cut the umbilical, then throw it to a pack of horny dogs who will then rape its (future) sex organs until this collection of cells has had the (future) life bludgeoned out of it by dog phalluses. After our dogs (who have more government protection than our collection of cells) finish satisfying themselves in our collection of cells and maybe having a little snack from the collection of cells we can have a sprinkler system in the roof that turns on and washes the remains of our collection of cells down a drainpipe in the center of the room.

[Artha]

Drew, do you have some kind of newsletter I could subscribe to?

[Drew]

I'm afraid not Artha, I simply, and infrequently, make an immodest proposal.

[Drew]

What I can not tolerate, though, is the claims of those moralists and religiousts that murder is not punished harshly because of the pain and suffering caused by the murderer upon his victim, rather they propose that murder is punished so sternly because it deprives the victim of future "activities, experiences, projects, and enjoyments" and "a future like ours". These fundamentalist nuts claim that a fetus does enjoy a future like ours and by this standard has a right to live. All I can say to these idiots is: ROFLBBQ, ZOMG roffleskates and
LOL at the abortion is murder comment. and
Pro-lifers are funny.

[Gan]

wow

Thanks for your contribution to an enlightened discussion.

[Drew]

wow

Thanks for your contribution to an enlightened discussion.


I think my idea is completely reasonable given the value assigned to these collection of cells/zygotes/non-people by some of our various posters.

[Gan]

Reasonable for someone who cant back anything up with logic or science?
You betcha.

I was hoping for something more than an emotional tirade. I stand corrected.

[Back]

In many states, committing suicide is a crime. Course if it's successful, there is no one to arrest, granted. However it's still a crime, just as assisted suicide is a crime.


In NJ at least, there was a mandatory period that you would be sent to a mental hospital for on a failed suicide attempt.

I dont know if you want to call that illegal or against the law.


I found the problem...

Well, after a brief search all I could come up with is this Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html) article.


In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.) Curiously, as of 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime--North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma. Of course they didn't take matters as seriously as the Roman emperor Hadrian, who in 117 AD declared attempted suicide by soldiers a form of desertion and made it--no joke this time--a capital offense.

Assisted suicide, yes. Plain old suicide, not so much.

[Gan]

In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.)
Just because its not punished doesnt mean its not a crime. The fact that it's listed as a felony in some states is evidence enough that it's a crime - regardless of punishment.

[Drew]

Reasonable for someone who cant back anything up with logic or science?




You haven't refuted why this isn't an acceptable idea.

[Gan]

Fuck that shit, this ban is bullshit. These parasites in women's bellies are just a collection of cells. Instead of a partial birth abortion, I think we should pull the whole collection of cells out, cut the umbilical, then throw it to a pack of horny dogs who will then rape its (future) sex organs until this collection of cells has had the (future) life bludgeoned out of it by dog phalluses. After our dogs (who have more government protection than our collection of cells) finish satisfying themselves in our collection of cells and maybe having a little snack from the collection of cells we can have a sprinkler system in the roof that turns on and washes the remains of our collection of cells down a drainpipe in the center of the room.


What I can not tolerate, though, is the claims of those moralists and religiousts that murder is not punished harshly because of the pain and suffering caused by the murderer upon his victim, rather they propose that murder is punished so sternly because it deprives the victim of future "activities, experiences, projects, and enjoyments" and "a future like ours". These fundamentalist nuts claim that a fetus does enjoy a future like ours and by this standard has a right to live. All I can say to these idiots is: ROFLBBQ, ZOMG roffleskates...


I think my idea is completely reasonable given the value assigned to these collection of cells/zygotes/non-people by some of our various posters.


You haven't refuted why this isn't an acceptable idea.

The part in bold? Who's to say we dont already do that?

Edited to add:

The fact that its a mass of tissue and cells incapable of sustaining life on its own has not changed. Its no worse than replacing "collection of cells" in your example with "collection of feces". Dog advocates might have an issue with that though.

However, I would venture to guess that sine its human biological matter, that it would first be taken to histology for review, then bagged/boxed appropriately and removed to a biohazard incinerator for disposal.

[DeV]

In other news, abortion recently became legal in Mexico city.

[Gan]

In other news, abortion recently became legal in Mexico city.

I saw the article, the RCC is NOT pleased.

[xtc]

Then let me break it down for you:

I was aware of what you were attempting to say.


You were a dickhead in that thread but since then you've proven yourself to be an idiot as well.


In that thread I was right. I guess you have never gotten over that. In regards to your latter comment I can't recall a thread in which you have made a meaningful contribution, unlike myself. Perhaps that will change when you grow up.

[CrystalTears]

xtc's view of himself is quite myopic.

[xtc]

xtc's view of himself is quite myopic.

If that is true that puts me in good company.

I can't recall anyone else here who made as meaningful contribution as myself regarding the war in Iraq or the situation with Iran.

[Gan]

I can't recall anyone else here who made as meaningful contribution as myself regarding the war in Iraq or the situation with Iran.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I nominate this for best comedy relief award.


Translation: You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

[Back]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I nominate this for best comedy relief award.

He has proved CT’s point methinks...

[Gan]

He has proved CT’s point methinks...

/agreed

[xtc]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I nominate this for best comedy relief award.


Translation: You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

Please feel free to enlighten me. Who here understood the factions, history, and people in Iraq better than me? I said it would be another Rwanda and it is, I said it would come to a civil war and it has. I said the police were also members of Shi'ite militias and they are. I said the Americans would have difficulty obtaining the trust of the Iraqi people and they have. Ask Dave why member of the Iraqi army and Police are kept in the dark about joint operations until the last minute and why the Americans search their Iraqi counter-parts for cell phones.

On Iran who offered more insight? Certainly Tsa'ah understood aspects of the Revolutionary Guard and how they are separate from Ahmadinejad and where the true seat of power in Iran sits.

On Afghanistan I said that the terrain had hindered the British, Alexander the Great and the Soviets and that the same thing would happen to us. It has been 6 years and still no Bin Laden.

I understand how my insight and analysis may differ from what is being offered in mainstream American media. However you will find it doesn't differ much from academic middle east experts.

[Gan]

At this time I would like to point you to your quote in PB's signature.

[xtc]

At this time I would like to point you to your quote in PB's signature.

That post was in regards to protestors in Iran who directly protested Ahmadinejad's convoy in Iran. They felt comfortable enough to protest the President directly in a very aggressive fashion....and they weren't directed to a free speech zone either.

However I was hoping that post would draw fire from PB. I can't say I have disappointed.

Do you think that when America supported Iran's nuclear ambitions in the 70's under the Shah that Iran was a free and open regime?

[Gan]

That post was in regards to protestors in Iran who directly protested Ahmadinejad's convoy in Iran. They felt comfortable enough to protest the President directly in a very aggressive fashion....and they weren't directed to a free speech zone either.

However I was hoping that post would draw fire from PB. I can't say I have disappointed.

Do you think that when America supported Iran's nuclear ambitions in the 70's under the Shah that Iran was a free and open regime?

Start a thread with this as a topic and we can discuss it. Otherwise you're fucking up a really good thread with your conceit.

[CrystalTears]

My god, please take this self-righteous crap to the appropriate thread please? We have enough war venom threads that you don't have to infiltrate the abortion ones.

[Parkbandit]

Please feel free to enlighten me. Who here understood the factions, history, and people in Iraq better than me? I said it would be another Rwanda and it is, I said it would come to a civil war and it has. I said the police were also members of Shi'ite militias and they are. I said the Americans would have difficulty obtaining the trust of the Iraqi people and they have. Ask Dave why member of the Iraqi army and Police are kept in the dark about joint operations until the last minute and why the Americans search their Iraqi counter-parts for cell phones.

On Iran who offered more insight? Certainly Tsa'ah understood aspects of the Revolutionary Guard and how they are separate from Ahmadinejad and where the true seat of power in Iran sits.

On Afghanistan I said that the terrain had hindered the British, Alexander the Great and the Soviets and that the same thing would happen to us. It has been 6 years and still no Bin Laden.

I understand how my insight and analysis may differ from what is being offered in mainstream American media. However you will find it doesn't differ much from academic middle east experts.

Read my sig again. I can't believe you even have the balls to say what you are saying. That's not ego, that's blind ignorance and stupidity.

[xtc]

Read my sig again. I can't believe you even have the balls to say what you are saying. That's not ego, that's blind ignorance and stupidity.

At least you are consistent, insults rather than constructed arguments.

For the record when was the last you were in Iran or even spoke to an Iranian?

[Keller]

I go to one lousy study session and this happens? Fuck.

[Artha]

For the record when was the last you were in Iran or even spoke to an Iranian?
When was the last time police action against protestors meant freedom of expression was alive and well anywhere?

[Parkbandit]

At least you are consistent, insults rather than constructed arguments.

For the record when was the last you were in Iran or even spoke to an Iranian?

OMG! YOU SPEAK IRANIAN AND WERE IN IRAN!?

Holy shit, my complete and utter apologies. If you would like to go back and edit out your stupidity in that post, I'll edit it off my signature.. since you are a pundit on anything middle eastern now.

Using that logic, then we shouldn't debate anything regarding the US or any English speaking country.. because I live here and I speak english... and that makes me the authority.

You are an idiot.. and if I spoke Iranian, I'm sure I would say the same thing.

[xtc]

Start a thread with this as a topic and we can discuss it. Otherwise you're fucking up a really good thread with your conceit.


It is CT and yourself who derailed things.

Trying to have a constructive discussion about foreign affairs here is a waste of time for the most part. Most of the people don't have a clue. HN lived in Iran so she had an understanding and Tsa'ah is somewhat knowledgeable about the Middle East, although we frequently disagree, at least he brings an constructive argument to the table.

Recently it has been like a sandbox in this place, simple arguments and personal insults in place of anything substantial.

Now you can return to arguing over this latest ruling on partial birth abortions.

[Parkbandit]

It is CT and yourself who derailed things.

Trying to have a constructive discussion about foreign affairs here is a waste of time for the most part. Most of the people don't have a clue. HN lived in Iran so she had an understanding and Tsa'ah is somewhat knowledgeable about the Middle East, although we frequently disagree, at least he brings an constructive argument to the table.

Recently it has been like a sandbox in this place, simple arguments and personal insults in place of anything substantial.

Now you can return to arguing over this latest ruling on partial birth abortions.


Bring something substantial and we can debate it. Of course, if it's anything about any country you've ever visited, we can't debate it.. since you have now proclaimed yourself a pundit.

Dipshit.

[Keller]

In that thread I was right.

No. No you weren't. You were correct insomuchas my initial explanation of Margie's problem, as told to me by my mother, was incorrect. You were wrong on every single other occasion in that thread.

But it sure didn't stop you from proving how zealotry + no self-respect = proving you're an asshole.


I guess you have never gotten over that.

Dude. You were a complete and utter jackass. I'm not a fucking dog. I wont forget that easily.


In regards to your latter comment I can't recall a thread in which you have made a meaningful contribution, unlike myself.

Then you obviously have problems reading and comprehending the english language. Shit, in the old abortion thread I made a much more meaningful contribution than you. I would bring up issues, you would callously question what church I went to. Not only are you a douchbag, you're a pretentious douchebag.

If you feel under appreciated, please, by ALL means, find another forum to offend.


Perhaps that will change when you grow up.

PWNT?

[Gan]

I"m ready for another one of XTC's extended abences.

[Keller]

Trying to have a constructive discussion about foreign affairs here is a waste of time for the most part.

Recently it has been like a sandbox in this place, simple arguments and personal insults in place of anything substantial.



No one will miss you. You can leave anytime.

[xtc]

OMG! YOU SPEAK IRANIAN AND WERE IN IRAN!?

Holy shit, my complete and utter apologies. If you would like to go back and edit out your stupidity in that post, I'll edit it off my signature.. since you are a pundit on anything middle eastern now.

Using that logic, then we shouldn't debate anything regarding the US or any English speaking country.. because I live here and I speak english... and that makes me the authority.

You are an idiot.. and if I spoke Iranian, I'm sure I would say the same thing.


My roots on one side my family go back to the Persian Empire, so I have some knowledge on the matter. However we are not Shi'ites so I lack first hand knowledge in that regard. Compared to your average American, yes I would make a good pundit on Middle East affairs. Pundit or Pandit is a word that has it roots in Hinduism meaning knowledgeable or learned person. Many people in Kashmir, which is where my Grandfather is from, have the last name Pandit. So yes I think pundit would be appropriate, thank you.

I also grew up along side children who left Iran under the Shah and subsequently the Ayatollah. Some were Muslims, some were Baha’is. Baha’ism has its root in Shi’ite Islam.

I know Iran to have a full, rich cultural history. I believe your comment about Iran was that piss ant little country if I am not mistaken. I guess you learned about Iran in Florida?

[Keller]

My roots on one side my family go back to the Persian Empire, so I have some knowledge on the matter. However we are not Shi'ites so I lack first hand knowledge in that regard. Compared to your average American, yes I would make a good pundit on Middle East affairs. Pundit or Pandit is a word that has it roots in Hinduism meaning knowledgeable or learned person. Many people in Kashmir, which is where my Grandfather is from, have the last name Pandit. So yes I think pundit would be appropriate, thank you.

I also grew up along side children who left Iran under the Shah and subsequently the Ayatollah. Some were Muslims, some were Baha’is. Baha’ism has its root in Shi’ite Islam.

I know Iran to have a full, rich cultural history. I believe your comment about Iran was that piss ant little country if I am not mistaken. I guess you learned about Iran in Florida?

This is where, if I were you, I'd just say, "I find this hard to believe." And then tell you to produce names, phone numbers, and blood types of all known relatives so that I can confirm your bullshit.

[xtc]

No. No you weren't. You were correct insomuchas my initial explanation of Margie's problem, as told to me by my mother, was incorrect. You were wrong on every single other occasion in that thread.

But it sure didn't stop you from proving how zealotry + no self-respect = proving you're an asshole.

You claimed the law banning partial birth abortions had stopped someone you knew from a having a dead fetus removed from her womb. I called bullshit. I was right, you were wrong period.


Dude. You were a complete and utter jackass. I'm not a fucking dog. I wont forget that easily.

If you are not a dog then stop following me around like one. You need to grow a thicker skin or your life as a lawyer, assuming you pass the bar, won't be pretty.


Then you obviously have problems reading and comprehending the english language. Shit, in the old abortion thread I made a much more meaningful contribution than you. I would bring up issues, you would callously question what church I went to. Not only are you a douchbag, you're a pretentious douchebag.

You came up with anecdotal "evidence" which proved to be b.s. I asked you to provide a single case where the health of the mother was in jeopardy. You couldn't except for the b.s. story.

During the discussion, instances of rape and the mother's life being in jeporday were used as a justification for abortion. I provided statistics showing that this was the case in a very small percentage of the cases. I don't recall you providing much in the way of a solid argument to justify your position supporting partial birth abortions.

I maybe some what pretentious but I least I check my facts and can construct an argument.


If you feel under appreciated, please, by ALL means, find another forum to offend.

Your opinion is immaterial to me. My work is quite project based so I come here during the lulls. In future I will be sure to come here when ever my schedule allows.




PWNT?

lol, in your mind perhaps

[Parkbandit]

My roots on one side my family go back to the Persian Empire, so I have some knowledge on the matter. However we are not Shi'ites so I lack first hand knowledge in that regard. Compared to your average American, yes I would make a good pundit on Middle East affairs. Pundit or Pandit is a word that has it roots in Hinduism meaning knowledgeable or learned person. Many people in Kashmir, which is where my Grandfather is from, have the last name Pandit. So yes I think pundit would be appropriate, thank you.

I also grew up along side children who left Iran under the Shah and subsequently the Ayatollah. Some were Muslims, some were Baha’is. Baha’ism has its root in Shi’ite Islam.

I know Iran to have a full, rich cultural history. I believe your comment about Iran was that piss ant little country if I am not mistaken. I guess you learned about Iran in Florida?

I'll consider you a pundit of all Middle Eastern affairs since you knew someone who was from there and talked to them.. as long as you grant me the same respect.

I have spoken with people from the following countries. I will now proclaim myself the pundit of all debates from these individual countries.

1) The United States of America
2) Great Britain
3) Germany (Part of the EU, so obviously I'll be the pundit for the entire EU)
4) France
5) Mexico
6) Canada
7) The old USSR (so obviously, I will be go to pundit for all seperate countries that used to be part of this country)
8) Iraq
9) Kuwait
10) China (I buy my tee-shirts from a guy who gets them directly from China)
11) India (Whenever I call customer service, I talk to someone there)
12) Japan
13) S. Korea
14) Argentina
15) Brazil
16) Australia
17) Cuba (I live in Florida, so clearly that also means I should be the pundit of Cuba)
18) Switzerland (I have the country knife)
19) Israel
20) Ireland (I know Dar)
21) Egypt

Those are the only ones I can think of at this moment where I have clear ties to.

I will thank you for your new found respect for me in advance.

[xtc]

This is where, if I were you, I'd just say, "I find this hard to believe." And then tell you to produce names, phone numbers, and blood types of all known relatives so that I can confirm your bullshit.

LoL get over it already. Your exs must have to get restraining orders on you. For the record your story sounded like so much bull that I wasn't the only one who disbelieved it.

What is so hard to believe a diverse cultural background from someone in Toronto? Every third person here has a diverse cultural background.

[Parkbandit]

Every third person here has a diverse cultural background.


ES just called, and asked for the source. You may be the expert pundit on all middle eastern affairs, but I claimed Canada first.

I fucking visited Ottowa.. and I know 3 actual Canadiens.. I would obviously know if this were true, and it's not.

[Hulkein]

Iran blows.

[xtc]

I'll consider you a pundit of all Middle Eastern affairs since you knew someone who was from there and talked to them.. as long as you grant me the same respect.

I have spoken with people from the following countries. I will now proclaim myself the pundit of all debates from these individual countries.

1) The United States of America
2) Great Britain
3) Germany (Part of the EU, so obviously I'll be the pundit for the entire EU)
4) France
5) Mexico
6) Canada
7) The old USSR (so obviously, I will be go to pundit for all seperate countries that used to be part of this country)
8) Iraq
9) Kuwait
10) China (I buy my tee-shirts from a guy who gets them directly from China)
11) India (Whenever I call customer service, I talk to someone there)
12) Japan
13) S. Korea
14) Argentina
15) Brazil
16) Australia
17) Cuba (I live in Florida, so clearly that also means I should be the pundit of Cuba)
18) Switzerland (I have the country knife)
19) Israel
20) Ireland (I know Dar)
21) Egypt

Those are the only ones I can think of at this moment where I have clear ties to.

I will thank you for your new found respect for me in advance.

No problem, so your ethnic background includes all of the above countries? You have spent years growing up along side these people and discussing in depth their country's political history. You have cried tears with them for the hardship and torture they have endured under certain regimes. You are aware of the history and leadership of each. You know how religion has influenced political events and changes in art, education, health, leadership and other issues.

I guess one of the keys is to have an open mind when talking to these. In this case I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Please take each country separately and expound on each area I have touched. Since I hav typed in haste please feel free to include other crucial areas I may have missed.

[xtc]

ES just called, and asked for the source. You may be the expert pundit on all middle eastern affairs, but I claimed Canada first.

I fucking visited Ottowa.. and I know 3 actual Canadiens.. I would obviously know if this were true, and it's not.

No problem, however it is spelt Ottawa not "Ottowa" and it is 5 hours from Toronto which is the city in question.

You know 3 Canadiens? wow I am impressed. When you say Canadien are you speaking of members of the Montreal Canadiens or are you just using the French term for Canadian because the people you spoke to are Quebecois and federalists?

[xtc]

I am exiting this thread, as much fun as it has been, because it has been derailed enough. Now you can resume your regularly scheduled discussion over partial birth abortion and the recent Supreme Court ruling.

PB feel free to u2u me with the political, cultural, religious, and ethnic histories of the countries you listed. Please do include how their histories impact them today, their development and their outlook.

[TheEschaton]

I was born in India, am completely 100% Indian, and would never consider myself a pundit on India. Maybe on cultural matters, but not on Indian politics, etc, since I DON'T LIVE THERE. Ethnicity of a certain country/place does not impart expertise.

-TheE-

[Keller]

You claimed the law banning partial birth abortions had stopped someone you knew from a having a dead fetus removed from her womb. I called bullshit. I was right, you were wrong period.

You can say it till your blue in the face, but it doesn't make it right.

Maybe you should revisit the thread and re-read your zealous tirade?




If you are not a dog then stop following me around like one. You need to grow a thicker skin or your life as a lawyer, assuming you pass the bar, won't be pretty.

What the fuck are you talking about? I am responding to your drivel.

And nice "if you pass the bar" throw-in. What the hell is that supposed to mean?




You came up with anecdotal "evidence" which proved to be b.s. I asked you to provide a single case where the health of the mother was in jeopardy. You couldn't except for the b.s. story.

This is plain wrong. Go revisit the thread before you make yourself look even more foolish.


During the discussion, instances of rape and the mother's life being in jeporday were used as a justification for abortion. I provided statistics showing that this was the case in a very small percentage of the cases. I don't recall you providing much in the way of a solid argument to justify your position supporting partial birth abortions.

Where do you come up with this shit? You have a terrible memory.



Your opinion is immaterial to me. My work is quite project based so I come here during the lulls. In future I will be sure to come here when ever my schedule allows.

Then don't complain about the content in these forums. Either shut the fuck up or get the fuck out. It's immaterial to me which you choose.

[Latrinsorm]

This is where, if I were you, I'd just say, "I find this hard to believe." And then tell you to produce names, phone numbers, and blood types of all known relatives so that I can confirm your bullshit.Am I the only one who got a good three giggles from this?

[Parkbandit]

No problem, so your ethnic background includes all of the above countries? You have spent years growing up along side these people and discussing in depth their country's political history. You have cried tears with them for the hardship and torture they have endured under certain regimes. You are aware of the history and leadership of each. You know how religion has influenced political events and changes in art, education, health, leadership and other issues.

I guess one of the keys is to have an open mind when talking to these. In this case I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Please take each country separately and expound on each area I have touched. Since I hav typed in haste please feel free to include other crucial areas I may have missed.

OMG! I completely FORGOT you are claiming to also now be Iranian.. and even though you never lived there, you clearly know all about Iran because it's somehow in your DNA.

If that is the case, I will denounce most of my list... except Ireland, Great Britain and Germany. As part of the EU though, I will claim all of it.

PS - I have not cried though.. I hope that doesn't ruin my chances of being the political expert. I didn't realize being a pussy was a pre-req.

PPS - You are completely deluded.

[Parkbandit]

I was born in India, am completely 100% Indian, and would never consider myself a pundit on India. Maybe on cultural matters, but not on Indian politics, etc, since I DON'T LIVE THERE. Ethnicity of a certain country/place does not impart expertise.

-TheE-

WHAT!? That really fucking puts a wrench in my punditism of EU.

Son of a...