I wonder what’s up with San Fransisco? First they start handing out homosexual marriage licenses, now another judge rules that the partial birth abortion ban is unconstitutional. They better beef their defenses, Bush is lible to burn the whole damn city down.
This is interesting, not only because this is the second strong political stance a San Fransisco judge has taken, but because abortion is going to take the stage again. The serious religious issues will definitly be a prime part of the Presidential debate, most likely with abortion and homosexual marriages being the fore runners, but I don’t neccessarily think that this is a good thing. Presidents, historically, have a bad reputation for dabbling in society, when they really should be sticking to politics. Not to say that politics have no place in society (well, so might think other wise), but the President’s job is to run the country, not influence our minds. And if the job title has suddenly changed, then I want out - no single individual has the authority or the right to try and impose societal restrictions.
Good. The term “partial birth abortion” is a political fabrication anyway; as the judge points out, no such medical term exists. It’s mostly used to vaguely refer to third-trimester abortions, which are already outlawed in most states, excepting extreme cases where the life of the mother is threatened. But, since it’s not a real medical term, it can be used to encompass many other, much earlier, safe procedures, without clearly defining what is and isn’t forbidden. Thus, it becomes very convenient to use it in malicious legislation, in order to gradually encroach on all safe abortion procedures under the guise of banning only certain “extreme” ones.
Saw this and was thinking about posting it, doh. I’m pretty sure we have civil unions, the less offense term for homosexual marriages,(rolls of eyes) up here in Vermont.
Quote from Sorcerer: “…but the President’s job is to run the country, not influence our minds. And if the job title has suddenly changed, then I want out - no single individual has the authority or the right to try and impose societal restrictions.”
I agree, but then a number of people, Not all, can’t think for themselves or are so naive and gulliable that they are easily influenced. I believe in abortion, as in what good is a life if maybe theres a small chance it is not going to be given good care and such. However abortion should be the last resort if one cannot afford the time and money for the child.
I’m glad one of Bushs crusades has been halted even for a long bit; hopefully we wont have to revert to women having illegal, unsafe abortions ever.
Banning abortions will lead to the same problem as prohibition:
The law will be extremely unpopular among the population.
The law will be impossible to enforce, unless every cop, soldier, and secret super-intelligent cyborg was unleashed to do nothing but make sure it works out (it would be a criminal paradise, however).
People will do it anyway.
Yes, I know the analogy isn’t perfect, but bear with me.
The problem with outright bans is that they rarely work. Give people incentives not to abort, and save them for those who need them because thier life is endangered. Then I’d ban them (except for the latteR), when noone is interested in aborting anymore. Done, less effort, less dirt.
Attempting to strongarm these issues only aggravates people… But Bush is good at that anyways.
Well I agree that it will be hard to enforce. But you must remember one thing-Federal supercedes local. Also as a side note many of the Supreme Court Judges despise the San Fransisco judges because they make such absurd rulings and are almost always reversing there decisions. I don’t see why this would be any different, but then again you never know.
O.K. whenever I find myself in an abortin debate I’m told that it’s not a human life it’s just a fetus, while I contend that by asking how you can draw a line to when someone is alive or not this is a whole different ball game, we’re no longer talking about a tiny fetus we are now talking about a baby, partial-birth-abortion (whether it’s a medical term or not) the way I was taught it was exactly what it sounds like, the baby is halfway pulled out, they stick a pair of scissors in an cut open it’s head, then suck out it’s brains with a vacume (they use the brains for some sort of medical research). Bill Clinton tried to legalize just that and to the best of my knowlage that’s where the term originated, now maybe today people use it refer to all 3rd trimested abortions I’ve tried to keep myself out of political stuff but nevertheless, if someone stuck a newborn in a microwave we’d condemn them (as we should) so how can we say if it’s let’s say… 2 weeks prior “Oh wait, your not really alive yet, and it’s the woman’s body so she should decide”.
I can understand rape victims and those who’s lives are endanged rerecieving abortions, past that I cannot support such a practice. (and I hope no-one falls back to the “well your male so you’ll never be in this situation so you have no say” defence, I’ve had that used on me many times, all I can say is am I not still human, are we not still talking about human lives?)
I’m with SK here - what is banned in the law is not clearly defined, and that’s my big problem with it. With the government the way it is currently, keeping a law that way makes it far too easy to continue to push the line just a little further until the procedure itself is banned. I don’t want that.
Yes, I have a much more politically liberal (to some) view of when life begins. No, I really don’t like abortion (not like it’s something to like, but I wish that people would make other choices or have different circumstances in their lives before having to make that sort of decision). However, I feel that the government has no right to step into a situation like this and tell people how to choose. I’d rather it be kept legalized and therefore “safe” - I think it’s better than the most likely alternative. (yes, this was my Captain Obvious paragraph)
Way to attack a straw man, dude. Such two-weeks-prior abortions as you describe are already banned in most states except in cases where the woman’s life is at serious risk. See, this is exactly the problem with using non-terms like “partial birth abortion” - they’re so vague that one can use them to include almost any kind of abortion under the guise of banning obviously extreme cases.
Did you read the thread at all? They’re saying that it’s unconstitutional to impose such wide-reaching bans under cover of vague terminology. What they’re objecting to is not the fact that late abortions (which happen extremely rarely anyway) are illegal (which they already were before Congress stepped in). They’re objecting to the fact that the use of a nonexistent term encompasses a lot more than just those abortions, id est, that the bill uses this half-wit term “partial birth abortion” to encroach on many much earlier kinds of abortion.
On a related note, the single biggest issue surrounding research on human embryonic stem cells in the US was “when does ensoulment occur”. Its a ridiculous and unscientific claim.