Justices Have Pointed Abortion Discourse

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeffrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeffrey

Guest
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court justices Wednesday sharply questioned attorneys on both sides of the legal battle over what opponents call partial-birth abortions as the high court weighed whether to uphold Congress’s ban on the procedure.

In an intense morning of arguments, lawyers for the Bush administration and supporters of abortion rights gave starkly contrasting views: A law passed by Congress labels it a gruesome and inhumane practice. Supporters argue that such abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy sometimes are the safest for women.
A man in the audience began shouting midway through the proceedings, disrupting the hearing briefly before police dragged him away

apnews.myway.com/article/20061108/D8L91IQ00.html
 
Justice Stevens comments were particularly revealing. The discussion was about performing the killing in utero versus after some part of the child had emerged from the birth canal. Stevens tried to correct the attorney when he used the term “child” instead of “fetus”. Scalia interjected and said that one could call the baby (my word, I don’t remember exactly how Scalia phrased it) half a child and half a fetus if the ‘baby’ had begun to emerge from the birth canal. Stevens did not have a retort. But it was clear that the term ‘fetus’ was critical to his reasoning and that he must cling to its usage or his whole line of reasoning falls apart.

Screaming contradiction #1: How can the legal status of a human being change (from nothing to everything) by a minute change in time and geography?

Screaming contradiction #2: Both acts (in utero or so-called so-called partial birth abortion) are equally heinous. How can one argue to preserve the former based on the hazards of the later?

I think a whole other argument could be made. Once birthing begins, hasn’t the pertinent risk to the mother been removed? It is not logical to evaluate the legality of so-called so-called partial birth abortion using critieria of in-utero abortion. Otherwise, it would be completely legal to kill a threatening intruder the night after he robs you even if he has apologized and made amends!! (You can probably think of many better analogies).
 
Winters said:
. Once birthing begins, hasn’t the pertinent risk to the mother been removed?).
Click to expand...
That’s it right there. It blows their whole argument of “saving the mother’s life” way out of the water. It’s common sense.

Unfortunately, people are too stupid to use their common sense anymore. :mad:
 
But the ‘risk to the mother’ point, as it is made in the press AND BY THE PRESS, never mentions that the risk to the mother is by the in-utero procedure - the less-informed listener is to assume that in all cases that it is the pregnancy itself that is the danger.

Why don’t they state that in many of these cases the in-utero option is the risk to the mother and that the only safe option to kill is to permit the human-being fetus to begin this “all-but-instaneous transformation” into a person.

Stevens seems oblivious to the lesson that if you end up with a disgusting conclusion then the principles that got you to that conclusion ought to be replaced by decent principles.
 
Winters said:
Stevens tried to correct the attorney when he used the term “child” instead of “fetus”.
Click to expand...
Yes, the word “fetus” is quite important in the abortion industry. It tries to distinguish those in the womb from those outside the womb by making the former less than human through the use of terminology.

I suppose the argument can be made that inserting sharp instruments into a woman’s womb to kill the unborn child is always more dangerous to the woman than waiting till the child is at least partially outside the womb. In that case, why not simply argue for live birth abortion?

In fact, Professor Peter Singer has argued for what amounts to “post-birth abortion.” If humanity is a purely legal determination, there’s nothing to prevent the law from placing it at, say, two months post birth.
 
but wait! “Fetus” is the PROPER medical term. We can’t call it a baby! Its not the PROPER medical term… Calling an unborn child a fetus dehumanizes him or her. Calling the baby “tissue”, a “parasite” or “a blob of cells” is even MORE dehumanizing. I am praying that we will have the ban upheld.
 
If the mother’s life is in danger, by this stage, I would think the safest route for her (surely for the child) would be a c-section. Babies can survive as young as 24 weeks with proper nicu care. This procedure isn’t done until after the baby is of a viable age.
 
Lorik said:
If the mother’s life is in danger, by this stage, I would think the safest route for her (surely for the child) would be a c-section. Babies can survive as young as 24 weeks with proper nicu care. This procedure isn’t done until after the baby is of a viable age.
Click to expand...
Pax tecum!

You’re absolutely right and that’s just the thing–abortion is NEVER needed to save the life of the mother. At the point that partial birth abortions are performed, you can do a c-section…or just a regular birth…and give the baby care and then it can be put up for adoption of the mother doesn’t want it.

Remember Jesus words, which apply perfectly to abortion advocates: “You are of your father, the devil, and he was a LIAR from the beginning.”

In Christ,
Rand
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax tecum!

You’re absolutely right and that’s just the thing–abortion is NEVER needed to save the life of the mother.
Click to expand...
But don’t miss the point the other side is making - failing to do so allows their argument to gain traction with those in the middle. The pro-aborts are saying that a woman is entitled to an abortion of some kind at this advanced stage per the status quo, the elimination of a safer procedure (ie partial birth abortion) thereby increases the danger to the mother.

At this point, the pro-life attorney should be pointing out the hypocrisy that allows this awkward and twisted argument to be advanced - that personhood is vested purely in the will of the mother. The personhood of the unborn or even the almost born. The criteria for the legal rights of personhood is completely void of any scientific insights and facts.

How shameful it is for any society to accept this. Doubly so for those endowed with the knowledge provided by science.

Yet the media gets away with framing the issue as one of safety to the mother. For example, Nina Totenburg, of NPR news has done so. Sadly for journalism, there are many more examples.
 
Winters said:
But don’t miss the point the other side is making - failing to do so allows their argument to gain traction with those in the middle. The pro-aborts are saying that a woman is entitled to an abortion of some kind at this advanced stage per the status quo, the elimination of a safer procedure (ie partial birth abortion) thereby increases the danger to the mother.

At this point, the pro-life attorney should be pointing out the hypocrisy that allows this awkward and twisted argument to be advanced - that personhood is vested purely in the will of the mother. The personhood of the unborn or even the almost born. The criteria for the legal rights of personhood is completely void of any scientific insights and facts.
Click to expand...
I heard part of the arguments from the case on NPR this morning and it struck me when the atty. for PP mentioned [paraphrasing here] the woman “who has already had to make his agonizing moral, religious decision” having Congress butt into her choices, blah, blah.
But if it’s “just a fetus” or a “clump of cells” or at any rate not a person, then why is it an agonising moral decion any more than getting a tooth extraction or liposuction would be?

Then tonight on Grey’s Anatomy amid all the soap opera elements they had a couple whose baby miscarried at 5-6 months. The show at least depicted the couple’s heartbreak but I’m wondering how can the same doctors perform “D & X procedures” and empathise with parents who lose babies. What gearshifting doublethink that must demand.
 
Mac6yver said:
Calling people stupid, that is real “charitable” of you.
Click to expand...
Let’s just say that there are far too many folks who do not use the reasoning matter they were given. And it is much easier to do what we want vs. what is right.
 
Mac6yver said:
Calling people stupid, that is real “charitable” of you.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s either stupidity or pure evil. If that makes me uncharitable, then so be it. Innocent babies are being brutually murdered.
 
As will I, until we get them replaced by a pro-life Republican and regain control of the Congress. 😃
JimG said:
Wiht Democrats in control of Congress, I will be happy to support any pro-life Democrat!
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top