[Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion? (was: Catholic Majority On Supreme Court)

Fri Apr 20 02:03:46 PDT 2007

Sue,

  A society that doesn't allow women the same rights as men is a society in name only. However, nobody has the right to slaughter an innocent baby.

  Don't get me wrong. I believe that abortion should remain legal. But I am steadfastly against infanticide. At what point does abortion become infanticide? I believe that is when the fetus is closer to a baby than a fetus. That point happens sometime between the 20th and 25th week of pregnancy. Therefore, killing something in the womb after the 20th week, as is the case with ALL partial birth abortion, is closer to infanticide than abortion.

  Making the argument that men as a consequence of not being able to give birth (this won't be true for very much longer) that they must forgo their right to govern concerning the sanctity of life is a flawed argument. It is like saying, if you don't own a cat you cannot make a law regarding the ethical treatment of cats. I don't have children, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to think and speak against that child abuse. I don't have a wife, nor will I ever be a wife, should I not have a right to say certain treatments of your wife should be outlawed? Should I listen to the arguments that if I am not married I shouldn't have a say in laws in the ethical treatment of a spouse? Nonsense. 

  I have a moral and ethical obligation to speak up when I believe vulnerable members of our society are being mistreated. I believe abortion at some point abortion becomes infanticide. I believe that I have an obligation to speak up when I see babies being slaughter under the false premise that is it another person's right to make such a decision. 

  I believe that 20 weeks is ample time to arrange for an abortion. There are ample other methods as well. Waiting until the fetus is 6 months along, 8 months, 9, months, born, breast feeding, graduated from high school, etc, it is just too late, it now a human being, with a brain and independent thoughts and movements. 

  My final point is this; Regardless of if you believe the government should or should not, and at what point, intervene with the sanctity of life, abortion is still EVIL and a grave sin. It is wrong, it is an illness on society that nearly a million women get pregnant unwantingly, and then go through with the act of terminating a life. Many so called prochoicers are not really for choices, but simply for keeping the opportunity for abortion as open as possible even when the abortion procedure mirrors infanticide. The TRUTH is, many women in our society participate in abortion because of lack of  choices, in economic opportunity, and in raising a child in a fair and safe society. Giving women more economic opportunity is what reduces abortion and gives more women a real choice, and what society should be concentrating on.

  Best,

  Donovan

Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com> wrote:
  Carl, this isn't directed at you. I just read Tony's and Donovan's remarks 
prior to yours so am posting it as an add on to yours.

It bothers me that 5 men who would never have to be faced with such an issue 
have declared themselves to be omniscient in its regard.

It bothers me that a woman who might have been looking forward to the birth 
of a baby, and then learns of serious consequences for her health or her 
ability to have more children, is now denied the procedure that might be her 
only healthy choice.

It bothers me that those of you on this site who accuse those of us on the 
"left" that our response will be to "screech with wide eyes and bared 
teeth," are casting verbal stones without so much as an idea of what our 
response will be or what we may feel.

There are good people on both sides of this issue. And the good people are 
either grateful for the decision or concerned about what the courts and 
legislatures will do next. People who really care about children want the 
best for them even after they are born. Just watch the Idaho Legislature 
next session. They will certainly work even more diligently to limit 
abortion, but do little or nothing to ensure a working mother can leave her 
children in a childcare facility that will be safe. I am reminded too, 
there was, and I imagine still is, a section of Idaho law which, if it ever 
becomes enforceable, would force a woman to get permission from her husband 
before she could elect to have an abortion--even if that husband had nothing 
to do with getting her pregnant.

Here we have Idaho.....

Sue Hovey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Westberg" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Catholic Majority On Supreme Court 
upholdsmurderban

> Whoa, Tony. Such a vituperative description of all who would call
> themselves pro-choice. Evidently they all "screech with wide eyes and 
> bared
> teeth....." I would grant that there are those who believe strongly in 
> any
> cause that act that way. I imagine you could go to a Star Trek convention
> and find people screeching, teeth bared, about the oxygen level on Xenon
> VII. But, in my limited sphere, neither my pro-choice or pro-life friends
> have screeched or bared teeth that I have seen, unless it's while watching
> the Mariners blow another game. They're pretty much just folk. Unless
> they're Boise State fans. For sure, they're evil. Carl Westberg Jr.
>
>
>>From: "Tony" 
>>To: "Donovan Arnold" 
>>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Catholic Majority On Supreme Court upholds
>>murderban
>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:36:16 -0700
>>
>>Donovan is absolutely correct with regard to "partial birth abortion."
>>This "procedure" cannot be countenanced in a civilized society. No doubt
>>however, those on the left will continue to screech with wide eyes and
>>bared teeth, demanding their "right' to continue murdering the most
>>innocent among us.
>>
>>The battle for our souls continues....
>>
>>-T
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Donovan Arnold
>> To: Ted Moffett
>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Catholic Majority On Supreme Court upholds
>>partialbirth abortion ban
>>
>>
>> I for one am happy partial birth abortion is banned. I don't know how
>>any human being can be for the slaughter of a baby AFTER it pokes its head
>>out the womb and into this world.
>> We have to draw the line somewhere, and after it pokes his head out,
>>it's too late to be considering abortion.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Donovan
>>
>>
>>
>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>
>> All:
>>
>> The Catholic majority on the SCOTUS decided this case: Kennedy, 
>> Alito,
>>Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, with dissents from Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and
>>Breyer. Bush's two new appointees voted just as has been speculated on
>>abortion law. Perhaps their Catholic religion did not determine how this
>>majority decided, and these cases can of course be decided on very
>>technical legal grounds that can seem unrelated to the important issues.
>>
>> But is having one particular religious sect be a majority on the US
>>Supreme Court questionable? Does this give the Pope influence over law in
>>the USA? Of course they will rule based on the law and precedent, not
>>their religion, they all will claim. And who really believes that this
>>supreme objectivity is possible when making legal decisions that might
>>contradict the fundamental moral principles of a persons religion?
>>
>> I think it is fair to state that with this current SCOTUS Roe v. Wade
>>is threatened.
>>
>> Ted Moffett
>>
>>
>> On 4/19/07, J Ford 
wrote:
>> Top court upholds abortion ban
>>
>> 'Partial birth' law at issue; first time for justices to ban a
>>specific
>> procedure
>>
>> The Associated Press
>> Updated: 3:41 p.m. PT April 18, 2007
>>
>> WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's conservative majority upheld a
>>nationwide
>> ban Wednesday on a controversial abortion procedure in a decision
>>that sets
>> the stage for additional restrictions on a woman's right to choose.
>>
>> For the first time since the court established a woman's right to 
>> an
>> abortion in 1973, the justices said the Constitution permits a
>>nationwide
>> prohibition on a specific abortion method. The court's liberal
>>justices, in
>> dissent, said the ruling chips away at abortion rights.
>>
>> The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the 
>> Partial
>>Birth
>> Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed 
>> into
>>law in
>> 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an 
>> abortion.
>>
>> Siding with Kennedy were Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John
>>Roberts
>> and Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and
>>Clarence
>> Thomas.
>>
>> The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that
>>would
>> allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy
>>said.
>> "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the
>>course of
>> their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.
>>
>> Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.
>>The law
>> has never taken effect, pending the outcome of the legal fight.
>>
>> Kennedy's opinion was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion
>>opponents
>> expected from the more conservative bench.
>>
>> In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "cannot be
>> understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right
>>declared
>> again and again by this court."
>>
>> Dr. LeRoy Carhart, the Bellevue, Neb., doctor who challenged the
>>federal
>> ban, said, "I am afraid the Supreme Court has just opened the door
>>to an
>> all-out assault on" the 1973 ruling in Roe. Wade.
>>
>> The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line 
>> between
>> abortion and infanticide.
>>
>> Bush 'pleased'-
>> Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his
>> administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life."
>>
>> "I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that 
>> prohibits
>>the
>> abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's
>>decision
>> affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the
>>people's
>> representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and 
>> humanity
>>of
>> America."
>>
>> It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a
>>case over
>> how - not whether - to perform an abortion.
>>
>> Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of
>>obstetricians
>> and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest
>>for a
>> woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most
>>abortions after
>> 12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy said alternate, more widely
>>used
>> procedures remain legal.
>>
>> Action at state level likely-
>> The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place
>>more
>> restrictions on abortions.
>>
>> "I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it
>>sets the
>> stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws
>>respect
>> the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio,
>> Republican leader in the House of Representatives.
>>
>> Jay Sekulow, a prominent abortion opponent who is chief counsel for
>>the
>> conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said, "This is 
>> the
>>most
>> monumental win on the abortion issue that we have ever had."
>>
>> Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America:
>>"This
>> ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and
>>the best
>> interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women
>>that
>> politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for
>>them."
>> She had argued that point before the justices.
>>
>> More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States
>>each year,
>> according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in
>>the
>> first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's
>>ruling. The
>> Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction 
>> procedures -
>>the
>> medical term most often used by doctors - were performed in 2000,
>>the latest
>> figures available.
>>
>> Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is
>>an
>> impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an
>>abortion.
>>
>> Ginsburg writes dissent-
>> "Today's decision is alarming," Ginsburg wrote in dissent for the
>>court's
>> liberal bloc. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously"
>>previous
>> Supreme Court decisions on abortion.
>>
>> Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds,
>>federal
>> intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and
>>proper in
>> certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and
>>Gynecologists."
>>
>> Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a
>>woman's
>> right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with
>>no
>> exception safeguarding a woman's health."
>>
>> She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John
>>Paul
>> Stevens.
>>
>> The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact
>>from a
>> woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the
>>abortion.
>>
>> Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of
>>abortions
>> performed because an alternate method - dismembering the fetus in
>>the uterus
>> - is available and, indeed, much more common.
>>
>> In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck
>>down a
>> state ban on partial-birth abortions in a challenge also brought by
>>Carhart.
>> Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the 
>> law
>>imposed
>> an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision in
>>part
>> because it lacked a health exception.
>>
>> The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a
>>federal
>> law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never
>>medically
>> necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed
>>to
>> overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has
>>demanded in
>> abortion cases.
>>
>> But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the 
>> law
>>was
>> unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme
>>Court
>> accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up
>>Wednesday's
>> ruling.
>>
>> Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers
>>expected him
>> to take a different view of the current case.
>>
>> Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure
>>within the
>> medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty
>>as a
>> reason to allow the disputed procedure.
>>
>> "The medical uncertainty over whether the Act's prohibition creates
>> significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude 
>> ...
>>that
>> the Act does not impose an undue burden," Kennedy said Wednesday.
>>
>> While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its
>> constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a
>>challenge in
>> which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure 
>> on
>>a
>> patient suffering certain medical complications.
>>
>> The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is
>>in
>> jeopardy.
>>
>> The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned
>> Parenthood, 05-1382.
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
>> Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>
>
>>=======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Interest Rates NEAR 39yr LOWS! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,299/mo - 
> Calculate
> new payment
> http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-19132&moid=14888
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 
> 5:32 AM
>
> 

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
http://www.fsr.net 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070420/afcfd9b0/attachment-0001.html 