We don’t vote for laws, we vote for government officials. And your religious right to expres your preference for a particular law to be passed does not make that law constitutional.
Well, some of us are even more worried that we can be thrown in jail for doing certain things just because religious people disapprove of them.
Now you’re just getting ridiculous. The preamble is a slogan, not a law, and “blessing” can be defined in a secular sense, meaning “benefit” only more poetic. (And the emphasis is on the liberty, not the blessing.) To try to read into it a religious mandate indicates considerable bias.
The point is that by dragging out the fight over PBA, pro-choicers were able to force their opponents to expend resources on this narrow issue that might otherwise have been used to hasten the threat to abortion rights proper.
Oh, that’s not what I meant. I meant that by forcing their opponents to take a stand that is clearly unpopular (more so than general abortion rights), they get people to look at them as the “good” side in the fight.
Irrespective of the law and other health/moral issues surrounding this issue, after reading the following on wikipedia
I’m curious as to what supporters of the legality of partial-birth abortion would feel is ‘too far’ into the birth process, that they would not agree with killing the fetus.
For example
if the whole body is out and the umbilical cord is cut, is it OK to kill the fetus? (is it a baby in that case?)
if the whole body is out and the umbilical cord is intact, is it OK to kill the fetus?
For me, both above cases would be unacceptable.
Similarly, I think when the doctor pulls the entire fetus out except its head and then kills it, is unacceptable.
What do suporters of the legality of partial-birth abortion feel about scenarios 1 and 2 above?
For those who believe in the “it’s my body, I can do anything I want” argument, if the baby had been pulled out completetly, but the umbilical cord is intact, do you still consider the fetus part of the woman’s body?
Unless you have done this to a *viable *fetus, it’s dead no matter what you do. I’m not in favor of legalizing the abortion of a viable fetus unless you must do so to save the life of the mother. But if you’ve got a viable fetus outside of the mother, then it’s a baby, and you shouldn’t be able to kill it.
One is black, but other than that your statement is accurate. They are ALL conservative, male, and catholic. And all were, without exception, appointed by Republican Presidents.
I never thought I’d say this, but I’d prefer the Supreme Court simply reverse Roe rather than lead on the path I feel it’s headed: Chipping away at its foundations until it’s rendered effectively meaningless.
I’m willing to call the pro-lifers bluff on this because the political battle will eventually end in favor of choice. It’s one thing to pontificate about the evils of abortion, it’s another thing entirely when you or someone you love needs an abortion. The public won’t stand for it.
I can’t imagine that any doctor would abort a viable fetus unless he/she had to do so to save the life of the mother. Most of the abortions we are discussing in this thread are done on non-viable fetuses, are they not? If a doctor thinks he can safely deliver a viable fetus, he should do that instead of aborting. And once the fetus is outside the mother, it would be murder to kill the baby, whether it’s still attached to the umbilical cord or not.
Is that supposed to look all scary… listing them each individually like that? OMG, CATHOLICS!!! :eek:
Do you think it’s just a random coincidence? I’m not blaming them for being catholic per se, but the reason they were appointed was part of a very deliberate and concerted agenda by Republicans to destroy Roe vs Wade. I don’t think you can deny that.
Quite the opposite IMHO, the word blessing has a strong religious context - more so back then, so much so that using it intentionally in a secular sense would be considered blasphemy and would have been avoided.
Perhaps, although I doubt that was the case with Kennedy. I don’t know about Bush I, but Reagan and Bush II made no secret of their desire to overturn Roe. I don’t see that happening, though. Scalia and Thomas might want to, and maybe Alito, but I doubt anyone else. Certainly not Kennedy, and probably not Roberts.
And they needn’t be Catholic to be anti-abortion. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more anti-abortion Protestants in the US than anti-abortion Catholics. I generally think of the most virulent anti-abortion types as being Protestant (fundamentalists or evangelicals). Am I wrong about that?
Most, but not all. (given the exception you mention about saving the life of the mother).
So, for the few cases that are done on a viable fetus, I was wondering what does Dio think, given that he said in his OP:
If the fetus is viable, does he, and others who agree with the above, see a difference between removing the fetus from the woman’s body and killing it, vs killing it inside the woman’s body?
I think that it may be a technicality, but I don’t think society should condone removing a viable fetus and killing it. If a viable fetus has to be killed, it should be killed while inside the woman’s body.
We are in agreement on this. (BTW, if the all of the baby’s body, except the head, is out of the womb, do you consider that baby to be ‘outside the mother’?)
But, before the partial-birth abortion ban, a doctor could perform the procedure on a viable fetus, under certain circumstances, as far as I know. Is this correct?
Before the partial-birth abortion ban, were doctors performing it on viable fetuses, when the circumstances required aborting the fetus due to health reasons for the mother?
Well, Thomas has black skin, but culturally, he’s kinda white. Still, I’ll amend my statement to the Supreme Court of conservative, male, Catholic, mostly white America.
I’m sure TomnDebb will be along to call me a bigot for noticing that.
