You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 06:25:51 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions  (Read 8618 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ParadoxTopic starter

Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« on: May 20, 2008, 08:21:34 PM »
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/05/court-virginia-ban-lateterm-abortions-unconstitutional

We say that the ban is unconstitutional, yet the Federal government just decided to uphold their ban because it thinks that the ban is constitutional.

Thoughts, opinions, hate mail?

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2008, 08:45:26 PM »
While I personally loathe the practice and would never do it, there is no way that I believe that the government should be able to legislate my uterus, period.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2008, 08:53:48 PM »
The thing is this. Placing political correctness aside, an unexpected, unwanted fetus should be allowed to be removed from the uterus, like any other parasite. Yes, living being and all that, but here's the thing: if it cannot survive outside of the uterus, if it needs another life form to survive, if it's taking nutrients that that life form consumes for its health needs and whatnot... it is biologically a parasite. The host should have the option to remove it.

I don't agree with the idea of women who get abortions as a form of birth control, but you know what? I don't know any, either. I don't know any woman who has obtained an abortion lightly. It's just like the idea of birth control promoting promiscuity in teens... theoretically possible, but practically unlikely. It's all in the parenting and personality.

I also don't agree with actively destroying a fetus if it's removed from the womb but can survive. There are supposedly hundreds of thousands of childless couples on waiting lists to receive newborn or infant children. I say let 'em at it.

Then again, who is then responsible for that fetus before it's claimed by an adoptive couple? If it can survive outside of the womb with assistance, who pays for that assistance? Who pays for the respirators, the incubators, the IV nutrients? Certainly not the mother who just had the thing removed.

It's a thorny question, but not one that the feds should ever, ever have a say in. It's a violation of states' rights under the goddamn Constitution for them to be poking their wrinkly-ass noses in any of this.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2008, 09:30:01 PM »
I will keep this simple the Supreme Court should never have passed Roe vs. Wade its a states rights issue and there is no clear Constitutional provision that could clearly allow Federal intervention. It was an activist court making up laws and rights where said rights were very questionable. Any power not granted to the Federal government clearly in the Constitution are left to the States and the People and States have every right to regulate medical practice. And abortion is a medical practice. Add to that I feel simply a law is always preferable to a Constitutional right and protection, a law you can change if its a bad move. This Court Ruling cut down the rights of legislators to due their jobs following the wills of the voters.

And what is this your uterus when there is a child its also the childs home, what about the life of the child? Last time I looked when two humans have a child its a human that comes out not a dog or a cat or a fish so its a human life we are talking about here. Libertarians are rather mixed on this but taking the logical position for this the childs Liberty and its life has equal merit to the mother. If one intends to kill a human being even an unborn one then their must be a serious and compelling reaosn. The only one that would fit is if having the child gestate to a term when it can be removed from the mother and given a chance is dangerous and life threatening to the mother, then one can argue the present and mature life takes precedent. Its like the child having a gun to the mother much like a criminal having a knife threatening me I have a duty to self defense. I frankly don't see convenience as a legitimate reason when there are PLENTY of ways to avoid pregnancy.

And no I'm not religious this is not a religious viewpoint, its a matter of equal and fair execution of the Constitution to all persons and giving the most Liberty to all that must extend to ,for me, even to the unborn child. But I leave the execution of the decision where it belongs to the State governments, thats where it belongs and if they don't have a law then it reverts to the people.


Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2008, 10:50:16 PM »
Ok, I didn't even bother to read the replies to this one. 

I am very against abortion period, wheather partial birth or otherwise.  Here's only one of my, I think, very good reasons. 

I am pregnant now for the second time and only 7 weeks along.  My child already has a heartbeat.  I can see it.  This is a living human being and just because someone desides that they don't want to child after conception doesn't make it NOT a living human being.  It is NOT just some piece of bloody tissue (which I might add is also living) and it is not just a fetus.  It is a child who did not ask to be conceived and should not be murdered!  Yes, you heard me correctly, murder.  That's what it is.  Aborting an unborn child is WORSE than going and killing some little kid.  Why?  Because, the little kid can fight back but that poor unborn baby cannot. 

Now, is it unconstitutional for us to ban partial birth abortions?  I don't think so!  All humans have the right to life and an unborn child is a human. 


Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2008, 10:57:29 PM »
Now, is it unconstitutional for us to ban partial birth abortions?  I don't think so!  All humans have the right to life and an unborn child is a human. 

The way I see it, the constitutionality of the ban on abortions has little to do with abortion itself. It has to do with the Constitution, and state rights. The federal Constitution is very specifically worded. I cannot remember the relevant amendment, but it is worded to ensure that states have the right to govern themselves except in the case of interstate commerce. Abortion does not fall under interstate commerce. At all. It should not be governed by the federal government.

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2008, 11:10:42 PM »
ShrowdedPoet, it's convenient not to read other people's opinion and just state yours.

The reason a clear YES or NO will not be reached regarding abortion is that there will never be a clear agreement on when life starts.  I've carried two babies, as I said I wouldn't have one, but I don't have the right to say someone else can't.  That fetus can't live outside of the womb, so imo, it's not a person.  Feel free to argue ad nauseum, my decision is made and is based in my personal beliefs.

Regarding state's rights vs. federal rights, I agree that the Constitution states that it's a state issue.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2008, 11:12:02 PM by moondazed »

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2008, 10:00:04 AM »

I understand your point and--for the record--I too am against abortion, for the most part; however, what if you had been raped? Would you feel the same way about the kid then?

It's always stupid to say that though, because you can't legislate rape I suppose. It'd be too hard to prove who was being honest about being violated and who was just saying it as an excuse to have their baby hoovered out of them.

This may sound cold but I feel that rape victims should still have the baby and if they don't want to keep it give it up for adoption.  It is still a life.  And I'm not saying this because I don't know what it's like because I have been raped. 

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2008, 10:02:58 AM »
ShrowdedPoet, it's convenient not to read other people's opinion and just state yours.

The reason a clear YES or NO will not be reached regarding abortion is that there will never be a clear agreement on when life starts.  I've carried two babies, as I said I wouldn't have one, but I don't have the right to say someone else can't.  That fetus can't live outside of the womb, so imo, it's not a person.  Feel free to argue ad nauseum, my decision is made and is based in my personal beliefs.

Regarding state's rights vs. federal rights, I agree that the Constitution states that it's a state issue.

Well, here's where it gets interesting.  I don't feel a need to argue with you.  What is the point?  I really don't care what you think because I believe it is wrong and I don't really see a point in argueing with you.  What's wrong in my book is wrong and if someone says it's right I will state my opinion only once just to give them my insight into the subject and then just let it be.  It's everybodies choice to believe what they feel correct to believe. 

Offline BlackRose

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2008, 10:59:39 AM »
Abortion does not fall under interstate commerce. At all. It should not be governed by the federal government.

Unfortunately Trieste, that is where you are wrong. This may get a little dicey, but what I am about to say is the truth. After a fair amount of research that I've been doing, I've come across a bit of legislation that has pretty much opened my eyes.

The United States of America is a bankrupt corporation in England. When a child is born, they come to you and get you to sign some paperwork. How many of you have actually read that paperwork? What you are doing is signing the life of the child over to the state. At that point, the state owns the child and you are allowed to care for it as its biological parent. This can be seen in the sense that all children can be taken from their parents as wards of the state, if the state thinks that you are not doing a good job as a parent.

Before I get flamed on anything I am writing, I will again state, this is fact, this is the law in the united states, I could go back and look up the exact laws if you would like and post them here.

If anyone remembers the masacre in Waco, TX. Everyone on that compound exercised their right to expatriate themselves from the United States of America. They became free people, not bound to the laws of the united states, not protected under the constitution, and were killed for it.

Under the law of the United States, when you are born and your parents sign that documentation, the state owns you, you are a slave. Obviously it isn't in the same sense of the word as you think, but here's how it works. Everything in the United States is a commercial matter.

Crime, for example, is a commercial matter, including capital crimes. This is why you can post bail, and stay out of jail until your trial is over. This is why you can pay a fine instead of getting jailtime for most small crimes. The government isn't about to tell you that you can pay money to get out of a murder case... but, theoretically, if you go through the right documentation and file the right paperwork, you can become something called a Secured Party Creditor. The government doesn't like it when you do this, because they can no longer make money from you. You no longer owe the government anything, and they don't own you. No more taxes, no more debts, nothing. Anyone who doubts this, feel free to do a little research on Secured Party Creditors and find out for yourself. Personally, I'm in the process of this.

Unfortunately, thanks to the legislation our government has passed... Human life is interstate commerce.

Offline BlackRose

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2008, 11:14:18 AM »
They did exactly what our forefathers did. All things considered, the United States of America consists of a 10 square mile area in Washington DC.

In the end, it comes down to money. 74 men, women, and children, of whom 21 were under the age of 16, were murdered by the American Government. There was spin put on the masacre to make it look less destructive, but that was the heart of the matter.

I find their presence no less subversive than illegal immigrants, but you don't see the illegals getting massacred, do you?

Offline Sherona

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2008, 11:26:39 AM »
Quote
Interesting way to look at Waco; however, if they really wanted to "expatriate" themselves, then they should have simply gotten the hell off of our land. Go to Canada. Or Mexico. Or anywhere in the world where their ideology was more accepted. There was no need for them to try to tear down one society just to build their own.

Having done significant research on the Branch Davidicans at Waco, I can safely say that their "trying to tear down our society" is ...highly suspect.

In fact the "official" story is that they had guns amassed on the property that were illegal. There were allegations of child abuse but they did allow investigators in and these allegations were never proven, and were closed. :) But I won't hi-jack this trhead any more with this :D Feel free to pm if anyone wants to discuss this further.

Offline BlackRose

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2008, 11:31:23 AM »
Sorry Joe, I forgot to mention. Legally, the jurisdiction for the USA is a 10 square mile in DC and any and all military bases that are operated by the USA.

Once more, this is simply a statement that the American government has a legal right to regulate and a vested interest in human life. This is because they own you, or rather, your legal name, which is but words on paper, however, you are collateral for those words on paper.

That is why your legal documents have your name printed in all capital letters, generally last name, first name, middle initial. Its called your Straw-man. Honestly, look it up. Theres a great book that is a little pricey from the Americans Bulletin called Redemption, which outlines everything and more that I've said already.

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2008, 11:42:03 AM »
*rubs chin as though she has a beard*  Interesting!  Please make a new thread so we can discuss this further without getting so off topic.

Offline BlackRose

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2008, 11:48:23 AM »
I thought I was staying fairly on topic, with a few off topic comments.

The government has a legal right to ban abortion, lift that ban, regulate any part of your body. Your parent's gave them that right when you were born.

I also agree with definitive terms for things, rather than abstracts and ideas.

A human baby, until it is able to live on its own by itself without being attached to its mother, is a parasite, by definition. Morally, that isn't the case, because its a human. However, by definition, it is a parasite. The idea that it will eventually become a sustainable human life on its own makes it no less true.

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2008, 11:51:52 AM »
So the people who are disabled to the point that they have to have constant care or constant life support are also parasites?

Offline BlackRose

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2008, 11:59:58 AM »
No. They do not require another living being to survive.

A parasite is an organism that lives and survives solely by feeding off of another living being without giving adequate return. If you would like, we can declare that a fetus lives in a symbiotic relationship with its mother, because of a psychological benefit.

If you remove a child in the first few months of the pregnancy, the child will die, even with special machines and such to stay alive. The child feeds off the mother in order to survive. After a certain point in the pregnancy, the child could very well live with the help of machinery.

There is a reason why the law stats that after a certain point, killing a pregnant woman counts as two counts of murder instead of one. That is because the law does not legally recognize the child as being alive until that point.

Offline BlackRose

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2008, 12:13:32 PM »
Monetarily, yes. But then, all children could be considered parasites in that sense too. I am speaking medically and biologically.

If the government in the US socialized medicine, they would no longer have that parasitical relationship. Nothing can be changed to stop the parasitical bond a child has with its mother after conception.

Offline BlackRose

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2008, 12:22:59 PM »
Hence why I said, you can state that the relationship is symbiotic, due the the mutual value that both gain, rather than a parasitical one. Just because the theory was discarded because it doesn't sound pretty doesn't make it any less true. Take the child away from the mother before a certain point and no matter what you do, it will die.

I am not saying that I think babies are parasites and should be exterminated. I rather disagree with the idea that everything should be politically correct and not offensive to anyone. I do not agree with the idea of sugarcoating white lies to make people less angry. Afterall, a rose by any other name would still smell just as sweet. A pile of dung by any other name would still smell like crap. Doesn't matter what you call it, or term it, it is what it is and nothing can, or ever will, change that.

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #19 on: May 21, 2008, 01:16:06 PM »
lol,it happens to the best of us!

Offline MadPanda

  • Grand High Exquisitor and Errant Knave-in-Chief
  • Knight
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2005
  • Location: Somewhere Near The Emerald City...
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm letting my anima out of her box to frolic...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2008, 01:48:02 PM »
For everyone else...you are overlooking the obvious.  The vast majority of late-term terminations are done for the health of the mother.  We are NOT talking 'oh, I don't want to have this child'.  We're talking 'the child will be stillborn and to carry the pregnancy to term means that the mother is likely to die'.  Or 'carrying this child to term may result in complications resulting in sterility'.

This is not a cut and dried issue.  It never was.

Do a little research, not by listening to the advocates for one side or another, but maybe pay attention to the medical community on the subject, yeah?  Or is it too 'elitist' to actually look at the facts instead of loud-mouthing?

Offline Sherona

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2008, 01:50:42 PM »
For everyone else...you are overlooking the obvious.  The vast majority of late-term terminations are done for the health of the mother.  We are NOT talking 'oh, I don't want to have this child'.  We're talking 'the child will be stillborn and to carry the pregnancy to term means that the mother is likely to die'.  Or 'carrying this child to term may result in complications resulting in sterility'.

This is not a cut and dried issue.  It never was.

Do a little research, not by listening to the advocates for one side or another, but maybe pay attention to the medical community on the subject, yeah?  Or is it too 'elitist' to actually look at the facts instead of loud-mouthing?

Don't leave out the ones who are done because it has been determined that the child will have a dibilitating disease that will dramatically decrease quality of life. *shrugs* I do not look down upon those who have made the choice to do late term abortions due to any medical reason..but for me myself and I, if there was a chance the baby would be born alive I wouldn't. But its a personal choice, not somethgn I think should be regulated.

Offline Greenthorn

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2008, 01:51:10 PM »
My stand:

The right to choose.

Enough said.

Offline BlackRose

Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2008, 01:56:14 PM »
My stand:

The right to choose.

Enough said.

Quoted for truth

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Virginia strikes down ban on late-term abortions
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2008, 01:57:53 PM »
For everyone else...you are overlooking the obvious.  The vast majority of late-term terminations are done for the health of the mother.  We are NOT talking 'oh, I don't want to have this child'.  We're talking 'the child will be stillborn and to carry the pregnancy to term means that the mother is likely to die'.  Or 'carrying this child to term may result in complications resulting in sterility'.

This is not a cut and dried issue.  It never was.

Do a little research, not by listening to the advocates for one side or another, but maybe pay attention to the medical community on the subject, yeah?  Or is it too 'elitist' to actually look at the facts instead of loud-mouthing?

Ok, I don't think I've heard anyone loud-mouthing and believe me, I HAVE looked at all the facts.  I do study and look into things.