High Court hears Partil-Birth Abortion Case

[debby]

An Opportunity for the High Court
Janet Parshall
Beyond the News
June 29, 2006
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case dealing with the constitutionality of a gruesome procedure known as Partial-Birth Abortion. It’s the second such case taken up by the High Court.
Congress has enacted a ban on the procedure that is more rightly identified as infanticide rather than abortion. I was at the White House when the president signed the bill into law. His signature was barely dried when three legal challenges began—from New York, Nebraska and California. It’s the California case that the Court has now taken up, with the Nebraska case already before the Court.
Opponents of the law mandate that protection be put in place for the “health” of the mother. But abortion supporters know that the courts have ruled that the word “health” could mean just about anything—thereby gutting a real ban on the procedure.
Persistence pays off. Congress has voted on the ban, the President has signed the ban into law and the American people overwhelming support the ban. Now it’s time for the High Court to uphold the law.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1408279.html
FOXNEWS.COM HOME Supreme Court to Take on Second Abortion CaseMonday, June 19, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider a second Bush administration appeal that seeks to reinstate a federal ban on partial-birth abortion.
Justices had already said they would decide this fall whether the law is unconstitutional.
The court will review a pair of cases from lower courts that struck down the law. Those courts are the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
Congress had voted in 2003 to prohibit the type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb and its skull punctured or crushed. The law was challenged on behalf of physicians who could be sentenced to up to two years in prison for violating the law.
Justice Samuel Alito is expected to be a key vote in the case, because the court had split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law barring the same procedure because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired in January and was replaced by Alito.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200075,00.html
I pray this horrible death for babies will finally be stopped!

[Word Whacker]

I pray this horrible death for babies will finally be stopped!

Amen Debby! I agree 100%.

[bigdaddysgirl69]

This is a horrible death for these babies and I hope and pray that it will be banned!

[demopolite]

Now if they would just readdress that whole thing about letting the state kill adults by lashing them to gurneys and dripping poison into their veins, every Christian could be happy!!!!!

[LucyLou]

Now if they would just readdress that whole thing about letting the state kill adults by lashing them to gurneys and dripping poison into their veins, every Christian could be happy!!!!!

That may be inhuman and against your belief but how can you even compare the death of an innocent baby via partial birth abortion to a convicted criminal meeting the justice that was decided by a jury of his/her peers? Who gets to decide the justice of the baby...the woman who doesn't want it? There is no comparison in my opinion.

[Papa2]

That may be inhuman and against your belief but how can you even compare the death of an innocent baby via partial birth abortion to a convicted criminal meeting the justice that was decided by a jury of his/her peers? Who gets to decide the justice of the baby...the woman who doesn't want it? There is no comparison in my opinion.

I agree 100% here lucyLou and to tell you the truth that dripping poison in some of their veins to rid the earth of their sorrys A$$ is some times way to good for some of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Polly]

Now if they would just readdress that whole thing about letting the state kill adults by lashing them to gurneys and dripping poison into their veins, every Christian could be happy!!!!!What, if anything, do you know about Christian happiness?

[demopolite]

What, if anything, do you know about Christian happiness?
Well...I'm a very happy Christian. Just because I don't believe the way that YOU do doesn't mean that I'm not. And, in my opinion, I find it very sad that you would make such a mean-spirited remark to a fellow follower of the teachings of Christ. And I find it even sadder that four people who also define themselves as followers of Christ agree with your remark. Perhaps the five of you should meditate with your Lord over those thoughts. I don't remember Christ telling the apostles to be completely rude and uncouth to every other Christian that they found...but I may have missed that part.
That may be inhuman and against your belief but how can you even compare the death of an innocent baby via partial birth abortion to a convicted criminal meeting the justice that was decided by a jury of his/her peers? Who gets to decide the justice of the baby...the woman who doesn't want it? There is no comparison in my opinion.
I agree 100% here lucyLou and to tell you the truth that dripping poison in some of their veins to rid the earth of their sorrys A$$ is some times way to good for some of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My only point is that the lives of those "sorry A$$(es)," as you so marvelously call others made in God's image...just like you...would be completely safe in the hands of the man who founded the religion which the majority of you espouse is the reason this country was founded. If that criminal's life would be safe in the hands of Christ, why is it not safe in yours, then?

[Polly]

Well...I'm a very happy Christian. Just because I don't believe the way that YOU do doesn't mean that I'm not. And, in my opinion, I find it very sad that you would make such a mean-spirited remark to a fellow follower of the teachings of Christ. And I find it even sadder that four people who also define themselves as followers of Christ agree with your remark. Perhaps the five of you should meditate with your Lord over those thoughts. I don't remember Christ telling the apostles to be completely rude and uncouth to every other Christian that they found...but I may have missed that part.


My only point is that the lives of those "sorry A$$(es)," as you so marvelously call others made in God's image...just like you...would be completely safe in the hands of the man who founded the religion which the majority of you espouse is the reason this country was founded. If that criminal's life would be safe in the hands of Christ, why is it not safe in yours, then?My apologies for offending you. Based on your original statement to which I was referring, I didn't realize that you were a Christian. It appeared to me as though you were putting down Christians. If I was wrong, I apologize. However, if there is a mean spirited person on this site, you would get first place in my vote. You are habitually rude and condescending. And to quote you...Is THAT what Jesus would do?

[Bamassee]

Well...I'm a very happy Christian. Just because I don't believe the way that YOU do doesn't mean that I'm not. And, in my opinion, I find it very sad that you would make such a mean-spirited remark to a fellow follower of the teachings of Christ. And I find it even sadder that four people who also define themselves as followers of Christ agree with your remark. Perhaps the five of you should meditate with your Lord over those thoughts.I for one don't find her remark any more appalling than the sarcastic remark you made which referred to some Christians and their beliefs on a subject that has nothing to do with partial birth abortions nor this thread. So, who needs to meditate with their Lord about THEIR mean-spirited remarks?

[0ldman]

Now if they would just readdress that whole thing about letting the state kill adults by lashing them to gurneys and dripping poison into their veins, every Christian could be happy!!!!!
This is what caused me to lose respect for you.

Gotta take a shot at people because you don't agree with them.

I'm not going to hijack this thread, this is my only comment, but even you have to admit there is a signifigant difference between an unborn child and a convicted murderer.

[jowlar]

Now if they would just readdress that whole thing about letting the state kill adults by lashing them to gurneys and dripping poison into their veins, every Christian could be happy!!!!!

I don't think she was taking a shot at anyone. My understanding of her post is that as a Christian it would make her happy if they stopped killing adults as well as unborn children. I dont understand the backlash at her comment.

[demopolite]

...but even you have to admit there is a signifigant difference between an unborn child and a convicted murderer.

No...killing a human being is killing a human being. Some who support a woman's right to choose do not believe that a fetus in utero, prior to viability, is a human being. However, I do not think that you would find many people who would argue that an adult is not a human being.

My point was that Christ teaches that killing humans is wrong...and he makes no exceptions for criminals. Thus, those who follow the teachings of Christ and wish that this nation operate as a "Christian" country should wish that the high court also rule against capital punishment. I find it rather intriguing, then, that so many don't.

And thank you, jowlar, for getting the point of my initial post.

Gotta take a shot at people because you don't agree with them.
So, who needs to meditate with their Lord about THEIR mean-spirited remarks?

Taking a shot? Mean-spirited? How so? By pointing out that killing adults is brutal and against the teachings of Christ, and thus that Christians who believe that this country should operate as a "Christian" nation should want the high court to thus strike it down?

[0ldman]

I got to thinking the same thing, Jowlar, but I had the same initial response as everyone else (except you apparently) and she is known for trying to get a rise out of people. It is often how something is said as much as what is said that sets the mood. The phrasing above struck me the wrong way.

Furthermore, it is definately a hot spot, even in a single church, when discussing the death penalty. I don't see why that was even brought up in this discussion without at least some intention of stirring the pot.

[0ldman]

Demopolite, once a person has done something worthy of the death penalty, they have succumbed to their animal nature, or worse, have found a way to rationalize it. They have forfeit their status as a human being as I see it.

You don't keep a rabid dog because its wrong to kill, its irresponsible.

[leagle]

Cut out the name calling. Cut out the personal jabs. Or this thread will get moved, to spam.

[demopolite]

Demopolite, once a person has done something worthy of the death penalty, they have succumbed to their animal nature, or worse, have found a way to rationalize it. They have forfeit their status as a human being as I see it.

That's lovely, Oldman. But that's not the teachings of Christ. If this country is to be operated as a secular democracy, then your reasoning fits; however, the theological reasoning behind outlawing abortion fails. If this country is to be operated as a "Christian nation," then the theological reasoning against abortion fits, but your argument fails.

The two are inextricably intertwined and present a rather thorny problem, theologically, morally, and legally.

[0ldman]

Agreed, its complicated, and I'm done with this thread hijack, never intended on anything past my intial post, but I did realize I misread your intent. It did sound quite sarcastic until you posted you were a Christian.

You're not going to change my mind, I'm not going to change yours. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Good day.

[Word Whacker]

That's lovely, Oldman. But that's not the teachings of Christ. If this country is to be operated as a secular democracy, then your reasoning fits; however, the theological reasoning behind outlawing abortion fails. If this country is to be operated as a "Christian nation," then the theological reasoning against abortion fits, but your argument fails.

The two are inextricably intertwined and present a rather thorny problem, theologically, morally, and legally.

I'm not taking sides in this debate, but I will point out that the teachings of Christ involving the two issues mentioned (partial birth abortion and the death penalty) are not incompatible. Jesus taught that the innocent are to be protected when they have no voice of their own and those who break the just laws of the land are to face the penalty of those just laws.

[demopolite]

I'm not taking sides in this debate, but I will point out that the teachings of Christ involving the two issues mentioned (partial birth abortion and the death penalty) are not incompatible. Jesus taught that the innocent are to be protected when they have no voice of their own and those who break the just laws of the land are to face the penalty of those just laws.

"Render unto Caesar"? The problem is, though, whether those laws are "just" if this country is to be considered a "Christian nation."

When in a nation that is not a "Christian nation," it makes sense to follow the laws and do as best as you can. However, if the law of the land on abortion is to be overturned based upon the teachings of Christ, then why should not the law of the land on capital punishment also be overturned based upon the teachings of Christ. That's what I meant by "inextricably intertwined."

[Word Whacker]

However, if the law of the land on abortion is to be overturned based upon the teachings of Christ, then why should not the law of the land on capital punishment also be overturned based upon the teachings of Christ.

As I mentioned, maybe there is an option for these two ideas to exist and both be compatible with the teachings of Christ. It really has little to do with whether they are just in a "Christian nation," the real issue is whether they are just before God.

[dave]

First, the topic is about partial-birth abortions, not outlawing ALL abortions. I personally didn't think you could have an abortion (without a medical reason to) after the first trimester, which would essentially mean the incidents of partial-birth abortions would be very few and far between. In incidents where the fetus is threatening the life of the mother after the first trimester, then I would think the proper thing to do is to deliver the baby in whatever way is safest for the mother, and give the child the opportunity to live. I don't see any downside to any sect of the population for banning this procedure.

[0ldman]

I can't see really how it could be easier on the mother than a C section or natural birth. Birth is induced, and often the drug used to induce causes problems for women without any other problems.

Read up on how it is done, its a vile procedure, and they kill the baby in the birth canal before it can draw its first breath and has legal status as a person.

[demopolite]

I personally didn't think you could have an abortion (without a medical reason to) after the first trimester, which would essentially mean the incidents of partial-birth abortions would be very few and far between.

Under current law, the only thing explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution is first trimester abortions....of pretty much any type. States cannot ban them at all, and are very limited in what type of restrictions they can place on their availability.

Individual states can all out ban or place restrictions on post-viability abortions (I think...it gets pretty hazy here); however, that decision is up to the states. If the federal legislation is upheld, then it will take the state's right to make decisions regarding post viability abortions away.

(Yes....this is another one of those really fun times when the true conservatives should be advocating that the Supreme Court strike down the law as an unwarranted and un-Constitutional extension of Congress's powers.....but of course that's not going to happen).

[debby]

I got your message also. And frankly was surprised that someone who has studied law would not believe in capital punishment. And I know what the Bible says. But Jesus knew there were consequences for sin. We all pay them. Ever heard the old saying you reap what you sow. A criminal should be ready to pay for their crime. And I believe if we had harsher payment for crimes we would have less crime.
And to not see the difference in an innocent child who needs an adult to speak for them to me is just horrible. And the fact you don't believe a fetus is a baby is just beyond believable. Humans breed humans.
No...killing a human being is killing a human being. Some who support a woman's right to choose do not believe that a fetus in utero, prior to viability,( is a human being.)
I'm not trying to be a smart, know it all to you. I sincerely hope your trying to understanding me as I am trying to understand you. Since we cannot see your face, and your expressions, the words you type sometimes sound smarty pants and know it all. I'm not saying you mean it that way but it comes off that way. Just trying to help you understand. I know you have your degree in law and therefore are very intelligent. But, we grandmothers, mothers, grand dads, dads also know a bit too. We have experienced a lifetime of learning. Yea, I know your dad....I'm just a little younger than him. And I know you honor him in his knowledge.
ok way off topic.......
Can you at least admit this procedure is horrible? Do you understand how this is done? Do you understand this happens to full term babies? We who have children or understand children as a gift from God believe that all children (babies) deserve a chance at life.

[demopolite]

And I know what the Bible says. But Jesus knew there were consequences for sin. We all pay them. Ever heard the old saying you reap what you sow. A criminal should be ready to pay for their crime. And I believe if we had harsher payment for crimes we would have less crime.

1.) Why must paying for a crime equal losing one's life? There are many other punishments, you know. I seriously don't think that Jesus would have ever killed anyone, know what I mean? So if we are supposed to live like Christ and have a Christian state, then why are we killing people?

2.) I have often tossed around this little conundrum in my brain: If God controls everything, and everything that happens is the will of God (whether right or wrong) -- it is destiny. Thus, is it not the destiny of fetuses that are aborted to not be born? Is it not the destiny of the women who have those abortions to not become mothers? And if there is no such thing as destiny, then what is the "will of God" that people are going against when they sin? With these sort of moral and theological conundrums floating around, how could we possibly make laws banning the act based on theology?

I'm sorry if I come off as a *itch, as I'm not trying to be. I simply have thought long and hard about this issue, know what I believe, and know how to argue my position. As my boyfriend always says, "If she's wanting to be a Big B, you will have absolutely no doubt about it." Until that time, I'm just arguing my position, and I like to do so eloquently because I have always both appreciated eloquent argument and been taught to use it.

If that's "smarty-pants," then I'm sorry, but Mrs. Melton, Mrs. Stritzinger, and a host of other teachers and professors I have had since would accept no less. I'm not going to play dumb or pretend that I don't have an education....sorry.

[0ldman]

No one said capital punishment for jaywalking, but I'm sure you're familiar with an eye for an eye.

If you kill someone, we will kill you back. You can't ever bring someone back, but this is one time when the punishment can be the exact match for the crime.

btw, credit is due to Ron White for stealing his phrase...

[demopolite]

I'm sure you're familiar with an eye for an eye.

That will be lovely....as soon as we start supporting the U.S. as a Jewish state. If you'll remember, Jesus kind of repudiated the whole "eye for an eye" thing with the Second Covenant.

[dillybar]

Amen Debby! I agree 100%.

Amen Sister!~ Preach it, Teach it!

Walk the walk and talk the talk.

I'm very proud of you.

[dave]

There are plenty of tangents you can go on in this type of discussion that really don't address the topic--How can you support Lethal Injection and be against abortion (and vice verse)--If abortion is murder, what is birth control? Is it murder to kill something (someone) that will die anyway? (compare abortion of a viable fetus to stabbing a man on the way to the electric chair). Some make more sense than others, but ultimately the argument is lost on both sides of the fence.

Whether you are for or against abortion, you have to look at this topic and consider it by itself. Should it be legal to kill a fetus that has a chance of living outside the womb? I personally feel once the fetus becomes viable, it should gain certain rights. If not, it doesn't seem a far leap to allowing parents to kill their kids (at least the mother anyway).

[debby]

That will be lovely....as soon as we start supporting the U.S. as a Jewish state. If you'll remember, Jesus kind of repudiated the whole "eye for an eye" thing with the Second Covenant.
No sorry dear he did not come to abolish the law.
Jesus own words John 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
So the law is still profitable for our growth and to accomplish Gods will for our country and our lives.
I believe capital punishment is needed when someone takes a life then their life should be required. As oldman said.
And God does not control our will. We have wonderful minds that God has given us. And he is a gentleman. He will not over rule our will. God wants us to be willing to love him and trust him. You wouldn't want your boyfriend to be with you because you loved him. You want him to love you back.

If that's "smarty-pants," then I'm sorry, but Mrs. Melton, Mrs. Stritzinger, and a host of other teachers and professors I have had since would accept no less. I'm not going to play dumb or pretend that I don't have an education....sorry. I know them also. Had Mrs Stritzinger.
And I would never ask you to play dumb. Condescending yes!

As far as Jesus not killing anyone. He didn't or wouldn't. Remember those who were on the cross with him. Neither of them begged to come down. And only one Jesus said will be with him in Paradise. So sometimes your payment for your sin/crime is severe. He was a thief. In some places they cut the hand off those who steal. Boy that would make anyone not want to steal.

As for it being destiny for children to be aborted. No way! As I said God does not control our minds. We have our own will.
With these sort of moral and theological conundrums floating around, how could we possibly make laws banning the act based on theology?

And I know you do not believe me but our Constitution is based on Biblical principles. So yes laws can be made by Biblical principles.

[chrymalone]

Well, I had both of those teachers too, and I would never try to come across the way that you have many times before. I have an education too that I am really proud of. That does not mean that I should be a "smarty pants" all the time. Back on subject, I also do not know how one could even compare the rights of an innocent LIFE, JMO, but a child is a child the minute that he or she is conceived, to a murderer. That is the worst comparison that I have ever heard of. I just do not see how someone could not give a child the chance to live. A murder makes their decision to end their life. The Bible also says to live by the Law of the Land. The last time that I checked, that was the death penalty. JMHO. That is all that I will say about this matter.

[BOHNTR]

Poor horse.:D

[BOHNTR]

I probably should not even go here, but I think that I will. Debby, I do not agree with your statement about God not controlling our minds or "our will". Do you not believe that God knows all of our sins and future sins? Therefore, I believe that we have a destiny that God created when he created us. So basically, he has programmed us to think and act the way we do. We really don't have a "free reign" on our minds, do we?

[demopolite]

Debby:

Matthew 5

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Thanks...but I'm gonna go with that the guy with the beard says.

And I know you do not believe me but our Constitution is based on Biblical principles

:demopolite beats head against wall and prays that the system of history education in the United States gets a hell of a lot better sometime in the very near future:

I agree with BOHNTR....there's nothing left of this damn horse.

[debby]

I really would like to know what happened from here

Originally Posted by demopolite 3-2-2005
My personal morality holds that life begins at conception, and thus I would never have an abortion.

However, I don't think that I have the right to press my personal morality on others who may not share it. The courts currently hold that life begins at viability. Therefore, I will support a woman's "right" to have an abortion before the child reaches viability, but I would never advocate that any woman have an abortion.

If a friend came up to me and told me that she was pregnant and wanted to have an abortion, I would first talk to her about the consequences and other options, but if she insisted on getting an abortion, I don't think that my personal morality should affect her ability to get one.

As far as abortion goes, there are as many opinions about it as there are people who have opinions about it.


to here
8-3-2006
And as soon as they reach that stage where God himself allows them to maintain an existence outside of their mother's wombs, then they are individual human lives that deserve to be protected. Until that point, they are not - or at least their existence as such is a matter of religious belief and not biological science. Our laws concerning death and life should be based upon biological science because there are just too many religions out there with too many ideas of when life starts and ends.

My opinion, debby, as I have offered it to you countless times before.


which one do you believe? If you changed why?


Originally Posted by demopolite
What does that even mean?
Don't know. Don't remember him discussing the whole viability of a fetus issue much. Do, however, remember him saying something about not killing criminals.

Where?

[demopolite]

I told you PERSONALLY that I was done arguing this with you. Now I'm telling you PUBLICLY.

If you have already wasted God knows how long searching through YEARS of my old posts (which is really kind of sad), then please take a little bit longer to read back through what you just posted and realize that there is not actually a logical inconsistency there.

So now....again....just as I told you by PM: I am done with this discussion. It is going nowhere, and it's not even interesting anymore because arguing with someone who just quotes scripture at you is not in any way gratifying.

[trbl4u]

God does not predetermine the evil acts of men, nor does God cause them. Rather, these permitted acts mean that God knows beforehand how people will react in each circumstance. He allows people to make autonomous decisions, the choice to do good or evil. God’s foreknowledge of the evil that people perpetrate onto others caused Him to create within humans the ability to overcome that evil. And the good that people are capable of was predetermined by God to be blessed when doing good was chosen. These blessings enable humans to win over evil, while fulfilling God’s total plan.

Please understand this is MY OPINION.

[bama_latina]

But Jesus knew there were consequences for sin. We all pay them. Ever heard the old saying you reap what you sow. A criminal should be ready to pay for their crime. And I believe if we had harsher payment for crimes we would have less crime.

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Romans 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil.

As a Christian I believe that when it comes to taking a life no man is capable of making that judgement. "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty cut and dried to me when it comes to taking a human life. The 10 commandments didn't provide for exceptions.

[demopolite]

These blessings enable humans to win over evil, while fulfilling God’s total plan.

That's an interesting take, trbl4u....Calvinist/Presbyterian? That's kind of what it reminds me of anyway.

How do you see this theological take as tying into the captial punishment debate -- if men are in fact responsible for their own evil, which is not pre-ordained?

[trbl4u]

Presbyterian. But you know it really doesn't matter how we believe as long as we do...and what really matters is that each of us can have a different opinion and be happy.

To me there isn't a debate. God gave our lawmakers the wisdom to make the laws for us. He gave the doctors the knowledge to perform ALL procedures. Right or Wrong, GOD gave the knowledge.

This next statement may piss some people off but....here it is anyway.
Our judgment is with our "GOD", not my neighbor, best friend, churchgoers, etc...whatever I choose to do....HE is the one I have to stand before. "jmho"

[debby]

I told you PERSONALLY that I was done arguing this with you. Now I'm telling you PUBLICLY.
If you have already wasted God knows how long searching through YEARS of my old posts (which is really kind of sad), then please take a little bit longer to read back through what you just posted and realize that there is not actually a logical inconsistency there.
So now....again....just as I told you by PM: I am done with this discussion. It is going nowhere, and it's not even interesting anymore because arguing with someone who just quotes scripture at you is not in any way gratifying.
I was not looking through your post. I was looking for something I thought I posted last year and saw this thread by another person and was interested,
because I'm very passionate about the life of unborn babies.
I apologize if I offended you. Will try hard not to any longer. I use scripture because I'm a Christian who believes this is the authority.
I was hoping for answers without condemnation.