Alito 58-42

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Ken King

unless that partial birth abortion is the medically determined means needed to save the mother's life.

The only reason pro-abortion people want that stipulation is so women can con doctors into performing late-term abortions and say it was "to save her life".

If the mother's life is in danger, giving birth is giving birth. By the time the baby is partially born, it might as well be all the way born instead of overtly killing it. The mother's distress won't be expanded or alleviated one way or the other.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act defines partial-birth abortions as:

an abortion in which --
(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus

Prior to late in the second trimester, there's no such thing as "partial-birth" - they just do a D&X and that's the end of it.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

The only reason pro-abortion people want that stipulation is so women can con doctors into performing late-term abortions and say it was "to save her life".

If the mother's life is in danger, giving birth is giving birth. By the time the baby is partially born, it might as well be all the way born instead of overtly killing it. The mother's distress won't be expanded or alleviated one way or the other.



Prior to late in the second trimester, there's no such thing as "partial-birth" - they just do a D&X and that's the end of it.

What kind of third trimester abortion options are there? I don't know, but you would think by that point they might as well try to save the baby too if the need to end the pregnancy is a medical necessity to save the mother's life.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Ken King

What kind of third trimester abortion options are there? I don't know, but you would think by that point they might as well try to save the baby too if the need to end the pregnancy is a medical necessity to save the mother's life.

Third trimester isn't a simple D&X situation - the fetus is many times able to live outside the womb, so they have to actively kill it.

What happens with people who *want* their babies is they make a decision. Let's say a woman in her 7th month goes into cardiac arrest or gets cancer and needs immediate chemo (or whatever). She (and/or the father) would then either make the decision to let nature take it's course, or she might decide to forgoe her own treatment, or they might decide to induce labor and take their chances that the preemie baby will live.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Third trimester isn't a simple D&X situation - the fetus is many times able to live outside the womb, so they have to actively kill it.

What happens with people who *want* their babies is they make a decision. Let's say a woman in her 7th month goes into cardiac arrest or gets cancer and needs immediate chemo (or whatever). She (and/or the father) would then either make the decision to let nature take it's course, or she might decide to forgoe her own treatment, or they might decide to induce labor and take their chances that the preemie baby will live.

Given the state's compelling interest to protect life one would think that inducing would be the only acceptable solution, anything less is giving preference to one life over another, which in itself would be unconstitutional.

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Agreed. And what we'll probably see is first trimester abortions being legal in most of the 50 states and partial-birth abortions made illegal in most states.

I think that's reasonable law.

That's what the SC found in Roe, most states have just not written a law that complies. They did not find that women are entitled to unlimited abortions.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Ken King

Given the state's compelling interest to protect life one would think that inducing would be the only acceptable solution, anything less is giving preference to one life over another, which in itself would be unconstitutional.

In medical emergencies, I think that's what most women do. But we're talking about wanted pregnancies, where the woman wants to protect her baby if she can.

There's no reason for partial-birth abortion. It's just moral and ethical mumbo-jumbo that clouds the issue. The scenario I've heard most is that man and wife get pregnant, he leaves her for his secretary while she's in her third trimester, so she decides she no longer wants to bear his child and be tied to him for the rest of her life (or something along those lines).

In those rare instances, too bad for her. She can put the baby up for adoption. She can grow up and raise her child anyway. She can relinquish parental rights to the father.

At the end of the day, people need to re-learn to be responsible for their actions and decisions. And if we have quick-fixes like late-term abortions, they never will. In my opinion, partial-birth abortion is just another way to keep women dependent and not allow them to develop into fully functioning responsible adults.