THompson would over turn Roe V. Wade

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I guess abortion is okay if a lobbyist is paaying you money, but not if you have to pander to the moral conservatives of your party.

At least Mitt Romney was representing the will of the MA people when he claimed the government should not interfere with personal decisions.

[GaryC 7]

Since Gary doesn't want the government deciding who his doctor is in some kind of Universal Healthcare Plan, I'm quite surprised that he wants the goverment (or anyone else) making very private healthcare decisions for women. But I learned long ago that the modern conservative doesn't want traditional conservative values, i.e. less government.

My views are totally consistent. This isn't a health care decision unless the abortion is done because carrying the baby to term would cause harm to the woman. The decision to have an abortion doesn't just effect one person, it effects two. That is why there needs to be laws governing it. As I said, I don't care if it is legal or not, I just thing that states should make that law and not the Supreme Court.

[no name 1]

Since this involves another human when an abortion is preformed (the baby) it must have some sort of legal oversight.

Abortions are not performed on babies. Embryos mostly, sometimes fetuses.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

And the reasons for performing late term abortions are very complicated and almost always involves the health of both mother and fetus. To frame the entire abortion debate within late-term abortions (2% of terminations) is disengenuious

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sorry - this should not be a States' rights issue. Unless you want to see a whole plethora of cases like this:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/...9/breaking1.htm

The High Court today granted a pregnant 17-year-old girl in care the right to travel to the UK for an abortion. The girl, known as Miss D, is almost 18 weeks pregnant with a baby with a major brain defect.

In a ruling issued this afternoon the court said that Miss D can travel outside of the country for an abortion.

Mr Justice Liam McKechnie ruled there is no statutory or constitutional impediment against allowing her to leave the country for an abortion.

The HSE had insisted she required a court order to do so but District Court Judge Flann Brennan refused its application last Saturday to make that order on grounds that this would be a failure to vindicate the constitutional right to life of the unborn.

Miss D wished to have her baby until she learned on April 23rd last that it has anencephaly, a condition where a major part of the brain is missing and where it has a prognosis of three days survival after birth.

In her proceedings, Miss D wanted the court to rule the HSE cannot restrain her from travelling. The HSE got leave from the High Court on Sunday to bring the second set of proceedings challenging the District Court's refusal to make an order that it is in the best interests of her welfare to allow her travel.

On Monday, Mr Justice McKechnie said he could not give an immediate decision, as requested by the HSE, on whether Miss D could travel or not as the case had implications but he would give his decision at 2pm today.

Gerard Durcan SC, for the HSE, said the constitutional provision protecting the right to life of the unborn had to be read together with the right to travel amendment to the Constitution approved by the people. The people had decided that, "whatever other way you vindicate the rights of the unborn, you do not do it by restricting the freedom to travel".

Lawyers for the State argued the case is not about the right to life of the unborn but about the right to travel. Children had constitutional rights from day one and "those rights are not delivered to them by courier on their 18th birthday", Donal O'Donnell SC said.

While agreeing there was no law under which Miss D could be restrained from travelling for an abortion, James Connolly SC, for the unborn, said no State agency should facilitate or fund such travel and the courts should not be "some form of licensing body for abortions".

Miss D's baby is a live foetus entitled to the constitutional protection for the unborn and the fact that it cannot survive after birth "is irrelevant", he said.

Today Justice McKechnie ruled the girl was now free to travel to the UK for the purpose of terminating her pregnancy.

Trying to stop a woman from travelling to another State/Province for the purposes of having an abortion amounts to a frightening amount of legislative control over a woman's personal freedom.

BTW - the "brain condition" described above would involve the baby being born with no head. Yet against all common sense you have people trying to force the woman to give birth to it and go through several traumas rather than one.

[GaryC 7]

Since this involves another human when an abortion is preformed (the baby) it must have some sort of legal oversight.

Abortions are not performed on babies. Embryos mostly, sometimes fetuses.

Uh huh, and since if left alone that embryo or fetus will become a human then it does involve 2 people.

Your saying that this isn't a human?

[dalegg 143]

Less than 1-2% of all abortions are late-term, and I would be comfortable saying 99% of them are done to preserve the life of the mother. The pro-life crowd would have you believe that it's just irresponsible girls in high fashion dresses aborting in the eighth month for sh!ts and giggles, but the far more likely case is that the baby has been growing without a brain and delivery will kill the mother because the child's head is horribly deformed and three times the normal size. Something like 88% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks, most of them in the first month (so, uh, in a majority of cases, abortion doesn't stop a beating heart because the heart isn't beating until week 5 or 6.)

I'm a bit skeptical of the part that I bolded there. I cannot find anything refuting that so if you have a source I'd appreciate it. Of all the girls I knew that had abortions none of them had them in the first month and most of them didn't realize they were pregnant in the first month.

Check Big Dog's chart. 8 weeks or less, so the first two months have about 60% of all abortions. If we went by all the girls I knew who'd had abortions, though, that would make your average abortion getter a 16-year-old girl in a youth group whose parents were pro-life until it was their daughter.

Uhh. isn't a month about 4 weeks? Let me check..

[GaryC 7]

Sorry - this should not be a States' rights issue. Unless you want to see a whole plethora of cases like this:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/...9/breaking1.htm

The High Court today granted a pregnant 17-year-old girl in care the right to travel to the UK for an abortion. The girl, known as Miss D, is almost 18 weeks pregnant with a baby with a major brain defect.

In a ruling issued this afternoon the court said that Miss D can travel outside of the country for an abortion.

Mr Justice Liam McKechnie ruled there is no statutory or constitutional impediment against allowing her to leave the country for an abortion.

The HSE had insisted she required a court order to do so but District Court Judge Flann Brennan refused its application last Saturday to make that order on grounds that this would be a failure to vindicate the constitutional right to life of the unborn.

Miss D wished to have her baby until she learned on April 23rd last that it has anencephaly, a condition where a major part of the brain is missing and where it has a prognosis of three days survival after birth.

In her proceedings, Miss D wanted the court to rule the HSE cannot restrain her from travelling. The HSE got leave from the High Court on Sunday to bring the second set of proceedings challenging the District Court's refusal to make an order that it is in the best interests of her welfare to allow her travel.

On Monday, Mr Justice McKechnie said he could not give an immediate decision, as requested by the HSE, on whether Miss D could travel or not as the case had implications but he would give his decision at 2pm today.

Gerard Durcan SC, for the HSE, said the constitutional provision protecting the right to life of the unborn had to be read together with the right to travel amendment to the Constitution approved by the people. The people had decided that, "whatever other way you vindicate the rights of the unborn, you do not do it by restricting the freedom to travel".

Lawyers for the State argued the case is not about the right to life of the unborn but about the right to travel. Children had constitutional rights from day one and "those rights are not delivered to them by courier on their 18th birthday", Donal O'Donnell SC said.

While agreeing there was no law under which Miss D could be restrained from travelling for an abortion, James Connolly SC, for the unborn, said no State agency should facilitate or fund such travel and the courts should not be "some form of licensing body for abortions".

Miss D's baby is a live foetus entitled to the constitutional protection for the unborn and the fact that it cannot survive after birth "is irrelevant", he said.

Today Justice McKechnie ruled the girl was now free to travel to the UK for the purpose of terminating her pregnancy.

Trying to stop a woman from travelling to another State/Province for the purposes of having an abortion amounts to a frightening amount of legislative control over a woman's personal freedom.

BTW - the "brain condition" described above would involve the baby being born with no head. Yet against all common sense you have people trying to force the woman to give birth to it and go through several traumas rather than one.

Your referring to a total ban on abortion. That isn't what will happen if Roe V Wade is overturned. It should be the states rights to decide and if it happens there will always be states that allow it. The only way the scenario that you cite would become a reality here is if we had a constitutional amendment to outlaw it everywhere. That isn't going to happen. All your doing is using fear to make your point.

[no name 1]

Since this involves another human when an abortion is preformed (the baby) it must have some sort of legal oversight.

Abortions are not performed on babies. Embryos mostly, sometimes fetuses.

Uh huh, and since if left alone that embryo or fetus will become a human then it does involve 2 people.

Your saying that this isn't a human?

We were not discussing late term abortions.....?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It will lead to it Gary. Those states permitting it would be railroaded into banning it at some point down the road. And in the meantime all of those women who want an abortion will be flocking to those States - assuming of course that they don't get tied up in court as with the Irish examples.

[GaryC 7]

Since this involves another human when an abortion is preformed (the baby) it must have some sort of legal oversight.

Abortions are not performed on babies. Embryos mostly, sometimes fetuses.

Uh huh, and since if left alone that embryo or fetus will become a human then it does involve 2 people.

Your saying that this isn't a human?

We were not discussing late term abortions.....?

Thats a second trimester fetus. The ones you say have no rights.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Since this involves another human when an abortion is preformed (the baby) it must have some sort of legal oversight.

Abortions are not performed on babies. Embryos mostly, sometimes fetuses.

Uh huh, and since if left alone that embryo or fetus will become a human then it does involve 2 people.

Your saying that this isn't a human?

We were not discussing late term abortions.....?

Thats a second trimester fetus. The ones you say have no rights.

Methinks you're letting your true opinion slip through a little.

[no name 1]

My views are totally consistent. This isn't a health care decision unless the abortion is done because carrying the baby to term would cause harm to the woman.

WHo pays for pre-natal care? Who pays for post-natal care if the baby has seriosu problems? Or the mother?

It is very much a healthcare issue.

Since this involves another human when an abortion is preformed (the baby) it must have some sort of legal oversight.

Abortions are not performed on babies. Embryos mostly, sometimes fetuses.

Uh huh, and since if left alone that embryo or fetus will become a human then it does involve 2 people.

Your saying that this isn't a human?

We were not discussing late term abortions.....?

Thats a second trimester fetus. The ones you say have no rights.

Sorry, when did I say that? Oh yeah, I didn't.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

My views are totally consistent. This isn't a health care decision unless the abortion is done because carrying the baby to term would cause harm to the woman.

WHo pays for pre-natal care? Who pays for post-natal care if the baby has seriosu problems? Or the mother?

It is very much a healthcare issue.

Would you be happy for your tax money to fund pre-natal care for a woman who couldn't afford it otherwise? $$$ is often the biggest reason women get abortions (in my experience working in family planning). Many are lower middle-class women without insurance who would be bankrupted by their medical bills.

[dalegg 143]

Thats a second trimester fetus. The ones you say have no rights.

Sorry, when did I say that? Oh yeah, I didn't.

do you think fetuses have rights?