FOX NEWS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN

Fox News Channel ^ | 18 April 2007 | Fox News Channel

[Spiff]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court 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 that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

[Gelato]

Then you haven't been following this thread.

No one believes you can secure life and liberty with tyranny. That's a contradictory charge.

Those who argue for protecting life in the womb do so on the basis of our American creed, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the right to life.

When you start arguing against that principle, you have removed the argument against tyranny.

[oust the louse]

Don’t want to be greedy, but one more would be nice. Stevens has been on the edge of leaving for the past two years now.

That would be ideal...but he'll stick it out until after the elections I would bet to see who wins.

[Mr. Silverback]

You have been deceived. Allow me to help you find truth. Let's go to the tape:

In the absence of external morality,

First, there is no reason that external morality should be eliminated from this discussion or the legal debate. We apply external morality all the time as part of our government in a free nation.

Second, the only thing that makes an abortion a legal procedure is external morality. Some bags of garbage in black robes decided with their external morality (and those of ancient pre-science civilizations, see Blackmun's ruling in Roe vs. Wade) that a fetus is not a baby. Prior to that, external morality in most states (and every state up until the 1960's) held that a fetus was a person. I wonder what they knew that you don't?

Third, external morality is the only thing keeping any of us alive. Our external morality has determined that no one has the right to kill you. As I will show below, it is only your size that is saving you right now, otherwise anybody could whack you, take your stuff and call it their right to choose.

Fourth, the word fetus means offspring. The offspring of two humans would not be a fish, a baboon or a Harley-Davidson Heritage Softail, but a HUMAN BEING.

It lacks every characteristic we associate with individuality and personhood, except possibly consciousness at a late stage. No self-awareness, no higher cognitive function, no ability to communicate, no capacity for self-motivated action.

That would be a really great point if it had anything to do with reality. First, take a look at this fetal development timeline, which only deals with physical stuff and is not from a pro-life source. You might also want to view "In the Womb" (produced by National Geographic) or read "A Child is Born" by Lennart Nilsson. Both should be available from your local library, on interlibrary loan if they don't have it in.

I dunno, looks pretty human to me...and last time I checked, my eyes are not a center of "morality."

Second, all the things you mentioned make us part of a group. An individual is defined by their individual thoughts and DNA. Babies in the womb suck their thumb, dream and cry.

If you prick them, do they not bleed?

It takes external morality to view an embryo as any more a “person” than any other unicellular organism.

Then surely you can find me a scientist who says an embryo is not a human life even though it is alive, formed from the joining of human gametes and has a unique human genetic code, right? And if he or she does say that, it's not driven by their "external morality," right?

[JeffAtlanta]

It was on the basis of that argument that slavery was abolished.

Slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment.

Don't you find it odd that the same people that had their hand in crafting the Declaration of Independence suddenly forgot what it meant when it came time to ratify the constitution? Slavery was indeed recognized by the constitution and legal.

[JeffAtlanta]

No one believes you can secure life and liberty with tyranny. That's a contradictory charge.

Who said anything about liberty? The fact of the matter is that many here have proclaimed that abortion is the ONLY issue that matters. All others are mere side issues.

[MinorityRepublican]

Nah he won’t retire unless Hillary wins. If the Republicans keep the House, he’ll stay in the SCOTUS indefinitely.

[do the dhue]

HEAR HEAR!!!

[oust the louse]

Great looking smile on that baby!....My family was on vacation last week with friends and they just adopted. Matty J is a beautiful fun loving little 15 month old. My buddy looked at me as we were chasing him on the beach and he said “just think how close he was to being aborted....”

[AFPhys]

If the next president is ANY Dem, or any moderate, all of the libs on the USSC now will consider retiring so as to raise the chances their “legacy” will be preserved. At least two will go within the first year... and possibly all four would be replaced within the four year term... Souter is the only real question mark, I think.

[STARWISE]

MegaDittoes !!!

Praise the Lord, for Pres. George W. Bush's resolve, sticking with his guns and holding firm for the protection and sanctity of life.

[AFPhys]

“Giuliani ... will promise us a Scalia and deliver us a Souter...”

Souter at least sometimes votes against Ginsberg and Stevens... BOTH of whom will retire if Hitlery is elected (or any other Dem) and she’ll certainly be able to find two more just like them. Me? ... I’d rather have Souter. I’ll vote for the most conservative candidate the Reps field who has a chance of winning, and THAT will NOT be Guiliani. I’ll support Guiliani if he’s nominated, though.

PM: Your “rather take a chance present court remains healthy and wait another 4 years” is completely ridiculous. BOTH Ginsburg and Stevens will retire within the first year if Hitlery or any Dem is elected, as I wrote above.

So, Seriously, now:
If it were to come down to a choice between Hitlery or a “moderate”... how do you vote? Are you going to dictate that another Ginsberg will be put on the USSC? Try to be realistic in your answer.

[NucSubs]

Right...glad you added Rudy to that list.

[Gelato]

Slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment.

You're mixing cause and effect. That amendment was the result of the principles of our Declaration. It did not suddenly appear out of thin air. First came the argument against slavery, as Abraham Lincoln articulated so well. Without the argument, the Thirteenth Amendment would not have come about.

Everything Abraham Lincoln did politically was based on the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

Are you really trying to argue against those principles?

[dforest]

Which candidate is the moderate? McCain?

[Mr. Silverback]

My lovely wife found some additional truth for you!

The question of whether a fetus is a person, or at what point it becomes one, is the only true (or at least, honest) question in this debate; and it isn’t entirely ludicrous.

Well, that's funny, because "Maternal Child Nursing Care" published by Mosby in 2002, says the following about the fetus:

"The fetal stage last from 9 weeks (when the embryo becomes recognizable as a human being) until the pregnancy ends."

Note three things:

The book I've quoted treats abortion like just another day at the office.

It's used to train nurses all over the U.S.

Surgical abortions are performed on fetuses, not embryos.

Oh, and I forgot to note that you referred to embryos as "unicellular." Well, not so much. The zygote has 16 cells by the 3 day mark, and you can just imagine how many cells an embryo has at the fifteen day mark, not to mention at nine weeks when it is characterized as a fetus.

So, I think you need to go get some real education on this issue before you jump in again.

[Lawdoc]

My point is stare decisis is only as important as the supremes want it to be.

Stare decisis bites the dust when they decide to overturn a case after making some pretext in the opinion to distinguish the new case from the old case they don’t like anymore. It is a pathetic legal game that is played to justify fixing their own mistakes. As important as stare decisis is, it would be refreshing to read a decision where they said “we screwed up” - but that will never happen.

[scratcher]

I agree. We can’t let that happen. Just say no to all Democrat candidates.

[BearCub]

What the DUmmies are missing is that this 'ban' is not a ban on removing a fetus from the womb at any stage of pregnancy. It is a ban on a separate act meant to kill the baby during or after the delivery.

There is no possible "life or health of the mother" argument here. The baby is coming out and whether it has been killed or not has precisely ZERO impact on the health of the mother.

[Lawdoc]

My point is stare decisis is only as important as the supremes want it to be.

Stare decisis bites the dust when they decide to overturn a case after making some pretext in the opinion to distinguish the new case from the old case they don’t like anymore. It is a pathetic legal game that is played to justify fixing their own mistakes. As important as stare decisis is, it would be refreshing to read a decision where they said “we screwed up” - but that will never happen.

[Scarchin]

I love the smell of burnt liberals in the morning.