h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"I challenge anyone to show me the Constitutional justification for a law banning any form of abotrion. I fail to see how this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government."

That's easy, it's right in the beginning:

We the people of the United States, in order to.... secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The federal government is limited as to the sorts of laws that it can enact. They're supposed to handle issues that the states can't like forign affairs. The Constitution [A472817] defined certain jobs that the feds are supposed to handle in Article 1, Section 8. They also have some other duties listed in places throughout the document, such as the 14th Amendment.

The states on the other hand have general legislative authority. They can enact any law that does not violate the rights of citizens under the federal constitution.

The states have and enforce laws against murder, theft etc. The federal government has a more narrowly defined purpose. There are laws against federal laws against murder, but there must be a federal interest, for instance, crimes commited on federal property, murder of the President, etc.

These abortion laws should be enacted by the states if they are enacted at all.

I think men's opinions matter just as much as women's, and visa versa. Wasn't that the point of women getting the vote?

As I understand it, the best way for my friend's baby to be aborted was via the birth canal. Otherwise she would have had to have surgury for the foetus to be removed. The alternative was to carry the child to term, when it would probably been stillborn because - as I think she described it to me - it had not brain. This is hearsay, and 15 years old at that.

I am curious - in the case of medical abortion such as this - do you still think that the mother should be forced to carry a child who will be stillborn to term?

Ben
*against abortion in theory, pro choice in practice*

As a man I think I will defend to the death my fundamental right to have babies.

Oh, and about the link, I said it was biased. Niether the debate nor the thread is based on that page, and I've said anybody who wants can post a link to whatever pro-choice page they want. And nobody's answered my challenge yet, though I've been answering yours.

By the way, pro-life people don't like being called anti-abortion any more than pro-choice people like being called pro-abortion. So lets get our terms down right now, it's pro-life vs pro-choice ok?

Surgery would have been a much better option for both mother and child, I think, though I'm not a doctor and I haven't really got many details of this case you are describing. Was the child alive? I mean, if it was dead already, that wasn't an abortion.

I don't know if the child was alive. And as you say, you are not a doctor, and the treatment that she got was done at a regular hospital to which she was referred by a GP and her gynaecologist.

B

Could the killing of the birthed child be considered euthanasia, hence the ban?

1) Pro choice does not mean that you are pro-abortion.

2) As a woman, I don't like men sitting around putting down women for the choices they make with their bodies. Men have rights, but not the dominant right, which, as unfair as it may be, is the womans and the womans only.

It is common for women to be put down by the medical profession.

Up until very recently they were allowed to section a pregnant women under the mental health act and force her to have a caesarian.

Did you know that doctors do not bother to attempt to resusitate (sp?) premature babies under the age of 20 weeks? (Dodgy statement : might want to check that out)

Sometimes babies are not meant to live. I hold many-a-contraversial view about this...far too many to air in public, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

I'd be surprised if they wouldn't attempt to resusitate. Isn't that against the hippocratic oath?

Hmm, Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron posting while I was typing. So you're saying lincoln couldn't have abolished slavery? By a ban, I think most of us are talking about a new ammendment to the constitution.

About that medical case: I would like to say, however, that if the baby wasn't alive, it wasn't an abortion. Sounds like you're talking about a miscarridge to me. (was that spelled right? sorry, i'm using a strange keyboard.)

When does a miscarriage become a stillbirth? Not entirely relevant. Just curious.

So you're after an amendment to the Consitution to ban these things? I can accept that as legally viable. Next thing you know, you'll want a federal murder amendment. The appropriate venue for this matter is the states. They're perrectly capable of doing it. Some of them already are.

President Lincoln didn't abolish slavery, the 13th Amendment did that.

Ben - what you may be describing is probably a structural abnormality called anencephaly. In this condition, the cranium (skull) is absent, which according to the Obs & Gynae book I'm looking at - 'incompatible with life'.

In this case, a pregnancy would be called 'non viable' and under UK law, a termination of pregnancy can take place under section E of the Abortion Act - 'there is substantial risk that if the child was born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be severely handicapped'

In whether a termination of pregnancy should be either medical or surgical, that depends on how many weeks the woman has been pregnant for. Before the 9th or 12th week, a medical termination can take place (the difference in weeks pregnant depends on the drug used). Surgery is similar to the old Dilatation and Curettage, and though it says in the books can take place up to and including the 12th completed week, I have personally seen it used in a person who was 15 weeks pregnant.

Just some info
WD

(Can I also clear up some terminology here - the term 'abortion' is a bit outdated now, and is inaccurate in the sense that it means all pregnancies which are unsuccessful up to the 24th week - ie both miscarriages (what used to be called 'spontaneous abortions') and terminations. The correct term now is 'termination of pregnancy'. It's just that the subject title confused me a bit...)

Not normally a squeamish person I shudder at the idea of the skull being absent.

I followed the link to the National Right to Life Committee, and I checked out the Partial Birth Abortion area. Senate Bill-3 that was passed was a law, not an amendment to the Constition.

Again, I don't see any authority in the Constitution for the law. Congress is authorized to make laws in certain areas to address the duties of the federal government.

Wow, so did a bunch more!

1) Pro choice does not mean that you are pro-abortion.

That's my point, and being Pro-Life doesn't always mean you are anti-abortion. It also covers euthenasia and assisted suicide. So to be fair to both sides, call 'em what they WANT to be called, not what their opponents want to call them please. On the news, you'll hear the terms "Pro-Choice" and "Anti-Abortion" all the time, but you seldom hear "Pro-Life" and you NEVER hear "Pro-Abortion". It's all liberal spin.

Oh, except for FOX and talk radio which is all conservative spin.

So it's "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" not "Pro-Death" or "Anti-Abortion" OK?

2) As a woman, I don't like men sitting around putting down women for the choices they make with their bodies. Men have rights, but not the dominant right, which, as unfair as it may be, is the womans and the womans only.

What about the father?
An example would be a case where there's no marrige, and the mother wants to abort a healthy child out of embarassment, that the father would, given the chance, have taken away and raised alone. The father has at least as much responsability to the child as the mother.

What about the woman's parents/family?
Many abortions, I might even say most, are preformed on minors. Minors are generally not equipped to make those kind of descisions, though they would be if liberals wouldn't try to eliminate mandatory counseling before getting an abortion.



About "termination of pregnancy":
OK, partial birth termination of pregnancy, or partial birth abortion for short. Abortion is an old word, but aren't all words pretty old, really? I'm not shure I'm getting your point about terms. Please explain it better, then I might possibly even agree with you on that terms thing maybe, if I understood what you're saying.



about a ban:
I haven't been able to find the exact wording of this law. I just think we should ban abortions. Everywhere. Whether that means passing this particular law that the website is talking about, or going to all 50 of the state legislatures, or simply making a new constitutional ammendment that says that unborn human beings are have the same unalienable rights, such as life amd liberty, that all other human beings have, same as it did for the slaves and women, doesn't matter to me, as long as it gets done.

I also think that even if most people do not agree with this, no matter what party we're with, or what religion we are, we should at least be able to agree that partial birth abortion, the details of which I find much more disgusting than a miscarrige like this other person is talking about, (which does not bear upon the matter at all since the thing wasn't alive, so it couldn't be killed) is just so violent and wrong that it should never be done in a civilized nation.