Late-term abortion ban protects 'weakest, most helpless beings,' federal court rules
J
of Appeals' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III if he is looking for someone who
is truly qualified to serve on The SCOTUS.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16387
Late-term abortion ban protects 'weakest, most helpless beings,' federal
court rules
Richmond, Va., Jun 26, 2009 / 03:23 am (CNA).- The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in a 6-5 decision on Wednesday upheld Virginia's partial-birth
abortion ban. In his concurring opinion, one judge wrote that the law
protects the "weakest" and "most helpless" and condemned the use of the
Constitution to justify "dismembering" a partly born child and "crushing"
its skull.
In its ruling "Richmond Medical Center v. Herring," the court said the 2003
Virginia law does not unduly burden a woman's legal right to terminate a
pregnancy by more conventional means. It also ruled the law is clear about
the type of procedure banned and adequately protects women's health.
The decision reverses a May 2008 2-1 panel decision which struck down the
law, which is similar to a federal statute prohibiting a procedure in which
the baby is partially delivered and then killed.
According to the Alliance Defense Fund, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the
Fourth Circuit panel to revisit its original September 2007 decision that
the ban was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had upheld a partial-birth
abortion ban in the case "Carhart v. Gonzales."
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer authored the majority opinion in Wednesday's
decision, which won the concurrence of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.
"A partially born child is among the weakest, most helpless beings in our
midst and on that account exerts a special claim on our protection," Judge
Wilkinson wrote.
"The fact is that we--civilized people-are retreating to the haven of our
Constitution to justify dismembering a partly born child and crushing its
skull," his opinion continued. "Surely centuries hence, people will look
back on this gruesome practice done in the name of fundamental law by a
society of high achievement. And they will shudder."
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -
Socrates
Enkidu
> Late-term abortion ban protects 'weakest, most helpless beings,' federal
> court rules
IBen is the 'weakest, most helpless being' on the planet. How does this
help him?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that
the Gods are the dreams of men." - Carl Sagan
Martin
> President Obama need not look any further than the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court
> of Appeals' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III if he is looking for someone who
> is truly qualified to serve on The SCOTUS.
OK, cut the crap I want a straight forward answer from you.
A very close friend of mine had an abortion at 35 weeks. Her baby had a
defect that was missed through all the usual screening programs and if
born would be expected to live for maybe 48 hours.
Its spine had grown outside the body.
What is your proposal?
I don't want you hedging, I don't want you prevaricating, I want a
straight forward answer from you. Do YOU believe an abortion was
justified? Yes or No?
This question is not going to go away, I will post it every time you
procrastinate.
J
"Martin" <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a4805fa$0$18237$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>J wrote:
>> President Obama need not look any further than the Fourth U.S. Circuit
>> Court of Appeals' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III if he is looking for
>> someone who is truly qualified to serve on The SCOTUS.
>
> OK, cut the crap I want a straight forward answer from you.
>
> A very close friend of mine had an abortion at 35 weeks. Her baby had a
> defect that was missed through all the usual screening programs and if
> born would be expected to live for maybe 48 hours.
>
> Its spine had grown outside the body.
>
> What is your proposal?
>
> I don't want you hedging, I don't want you prevaricating, I want a
> straight forward answer from you. Do YOU believe an abortion was
> justified? Yes or No?
No.
> This question is not going to go away, I will post it every time you
> procrastinate.
......and I would care because?
Mr. B
So you believe that the baby should have suffered for 48 hours and then
died? How compassionate of you...
-- B
J
"Mr. B" <n...@supplied.com> wrote in message
news:h297oc$s8a$1...@news.gabrix.ath.cx...
>> No.
>
> So you believe that the baby should have suffered for 48 hours and then
> died? How compassionate of you...
>
The doctors were wrong once, they can be wrong twice.
Adam A. Wanderer
news:2u5j0o....@news.alt.net...
> President Obama need not look any further than the Fourth U.S. Circuit
> Court of Appeals' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III if he is looking for
> someone who is truly qualified to serve on The SCOTUS.
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16387
Supreme Court.
Besides, every fetus both needs and wants to have a late term abortion.
Abortion, good. Baby, bad.
The Chief Instigator
>"Martin" <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4a4805fa$0$18237$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>J wrote:
>>> President Obama need not look any further than the Fourth U.S. Circuit
>>> Court of Appeals' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III if he is looking for
>>> someone who is truly qualified to serve on The SCOTUS.
>>
>> OK, cut the crap I want a straight forward answer from you.
>>
>> A very close friend of mine had an abortion at 35 weeks. Her baby had a
>> defect that was missed through all the usual screening programs and if
>> born would be expected to live for maybe 48 hours.
>>
>> Its spine had grown outside the body.
>>
>> What is your proposal?
>>
>> I don't want you hedging, I don't want you prevaricating, I want a
>> straight forward answer from you. Do YOU believe an abortion was
>> justified? Yes or No?
>No.
You're not going to be pregnant, Front Royal Failure, so you don't decide that
issue for anyone else.
>> This question is not going to go away, I will post it every time you
>> procrastinate.
>......and I would care because?
Mainly because you can't make up your mind for more than one post at a time,
as you've exhibited countless times over the years.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: The 2009-10 opener in October, TBA
Martin
> "Martin" <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4a4805fa$0$18237$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> J wrote:
>>> President Obama need not look any further than the Fourth U.S. Circuit
>>> Court of Appeals' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III if he is looking for
>>> someone who is truly qualified to serve on The SCOTUS.
>> OK, cut the crap I want a straight forward answer from you.
>>
>> A very close friend of mine had an abortion at 35 weeks. Her baby had a
>> defect that was missed through all the usual screening programs and if
>> born would be expected to live for maybe 48 hours.
>>
>> Its spine had grown outside the body.
>>
>> What is your proposal?
>>
>> I don't want you hedging, I don't want you prevaricating, I want a
>> straight forward answer from you. Do YOU believe an abortion was
>> justified? Yes or No?
>
>
> No.
You're an evil fucker J
MarkA
>
> "Martin" <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4a4805fa$0$18237$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>J wrote:
>>> President Obama need not look any further than the Fourth U.S. Circuit
>>> Court of Appeals' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III if he is looking for
>>> someone who is truly qualified to serve on The SCOTUS.
>>
>> OK, cut the crap I want a straight forward answer from you.
>>
>> A very close friend of mine had an abortion at 35 weeks. Her baby had a
>> defect that was missed through all the usual screening programs and if
>> born would be expected to live for maybe 48 hours.
>>
>> Its spine had grown outside the body.
>>
>> What is your proposal?
>>
>> I don't want you hedging, I don't want you prevaricating, I want a
>> straight forward answer from you. Do YOU believe an abortion was
>> justified? Yes or No?
>
>
> No.
>
...because every blob of tissue, no matter how aberrant, is a "blessing
from GOD", and needs to be defended against that nasty woman who may want
to have some control over her own body!
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
LC
Just talking out his ass again, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:2u5j0o....@news.alt.net...
> President Obama need not look any further than the Fourth U.S. Circuit
> Court of Appeals' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III if he is looking for
> someone who is truly qualified to serve on The SCOTUS.
LOL!
Like that's gonna happen with our strongly pro-choice Prez.
Remember J<unkie>, you _claimed_ to have voted for Obama (not that
drug-addled felons like "J" can vote), despite his convictions.
*smirk*
x
> J wrote:
>> President Obama need not look any further than the Fourth U.S. Circuit
>> Court of Appeals' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III if he is looking for
>> someone who is truly qualified to serve on The SCOTUS.
>
> OK, cut the crap I want a straight forward answer from you.
>
> A very close friend of mine had an abortion at 35 weeks. Her baby had a
> defect that was missed through all the usual screening programs and if
> born would be expected to live for maybe 48 hours.
I note that you called it a baby while still in utero.
>
> Its spine had grown outside the body.
>
> What is your proposal?
>
What's yours?
That it be killed to prevent it dying?
Smiler
No. You've got it wrong. *God* wants every foetus to be aborted.
He does about half of them himself, to "show us the way."
Don't know why he can't get round to doing the other 50%?
He's probably too busy killing people.
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
--sexkitten--
Free Clue: "Give birth to it so it can die in agony" is not a healthy
attitude.
Martin
Fucking hell another one. No it was to stop it dying a long, painful and
lingering death.
Would you keep a puppy alive just to torture it over a few days and
watch it die while rubbing your hands in glee?
Nosterill
A friend of mine had the exact same issue but some well intentioned
idiot persuaded her to go through with the birth, give the "child" a
name and then hold the poor train wreck of a creature in her arms as
it died. It isn't easy to imagine anything more awful than that. It
was supposed to help her achieve "closure" but I have to think that a
clean surgical procedure would do less long term psychological damage
than having to endure a living nightmare that will haunt her for the
rest of her life.
Nosterill
> "Martin" <usene...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:4a4805fa$0$18237$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
> >J wrote:
> >> President Obama need not look any further than the Fourth U.S. Circuit
> >> Court of Appeals' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III if he is looking for
> >> someone who is truly qualified to serve on The SCOTUS.
>
> > OK, cut the crap I want a straight forward answer from you.
>
> > A very close friend of mine had an abortion at 35 weeks. Her baby had a
> > defect that was missed through all the usual screening programs and if
> > born would be expected to live for maybe 48 hours.
>
> > Its spine had grown outside the body.
>
> > What is your proposal?
>
> > I don't want you hedging, I don't want you prevaricating, I want a
> > straight forward answer from you. Do YOU believe an abortion was
> > justified? Yes or No?
>
> No.
>
> > This question is not going to go away, I will post it every time you
> > procrastinate.
>
> ......and I would care because?
We already know that you don't care. That has been well established
over hundreds of posts.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) �� WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ��
"Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
> "Late-term abortion ban protects 'weakest,
> most helpless beings."
BULLCRAP!!
HERE are the FACTS:
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
When PERSONHOOD **Begins**
"ProfQ" wrote, on 9-15-08:
> ...a fetus [is] a HUMAN LIFE. Life starts at conception,
> not at birth.
To which I responded with the FACTS:
That's abjectly ignorant bullcrap!
(1) Human life is a CONTINUUM. It started just ONCE,
several million years ago, at the moment the first
organism existed that had *human* DNA. It has
been self-sustaining ever since, with every single
entity in it, from skin cells to gametes to already-
born PEOPLE (i.e., *human beings*) being ALIVE.
(2) Try and combine a DEAD sperm with a DEAD egg
and see what you get. Life does NOT begin at
fertilization, and in light of Point #1, the word
"conception" as commonly used in this regard, is
total nonsense.
(3) ALL FOUR reproductive-process entities (RPEs;
gametes, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses) are:
-- Human
-- Alive
-- Unique
-- *Potential* people
-- indispensable to all births
... and more than a QUADRILLION such potential
people are electively aborted *daily*, worldwide --
by men. (While the hateful louses of ANTI-Choice
hypocritically look the other way and whistle a tune.)
(4) PERSONHOOD -- that point at which a human entity
becomes defensible -- begins at BIRTH. Even the
Bible makes that *very* clear:
-- The Bible NEVER defends RPEs as PEOPLE.
-- ALL human life the Bible defends has/had been BORN.
-- The Bible make it very CLEAR that personhood begins
at BIRTH, in is passages that emphasize the importance
of ---
-- BIRTHrights
-- First-BORNS
-- BIRTH order.
So -- a fetus (particularly an UNwanted one that a woman
has NO desire to gestate -- does NOT qualify. For anything.
And as I said before, intelligent people usually should KNOW
better than to lend any support to loathsome, hateful and bigoted
agendas of ignorant sociopaths who seek to do such things as
FORCE girls and women to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term
against their will.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
x
So you are defending euthansia of people.
Nosterill
Why not? Martin makes a good point with his puppy analogy. You could
be prosecuted for allowing a pet to suffer the long, lingering death
that we seem obliged to force on people.
--sexkitten--
Well? Would you?
Do you have a specific allergy to the common question mark? I've
noticed you back away in a hurry when people ask you things.
x
Bingo! That's the response I was looking for.
Now where do you draw the line? How much suffering justifies euthanasia
and who decides? I see some pretty unhappy looking people at times.
Nosterill
There isn't an easy answer. There would need to be the flexibility of
case by case judgements but within a strong legal framework to ensure
that the interests of the dying are best represented. Convenient
offing for the depressed should not be on the agenda. My father died
last year, at the ripe old age of ninety two: He spent the last nine
months of his life lying in a care home bed - deaf, blind and unable
to take solid food. He was known to be terminal but the rules required
that he be kept alive until such time as a minor infection could
administer the coup de grace and he got to drown in his own lung
fluids. A lot of us have that to look forward to in the not too
distant future and I, for one, would prefer to be offered the decent
and dignified end that we might allow a dog.
I agree that this would always be a legal and moral minefield but a
blanket, dogmatic veto isn't the answer either.
--sexkitten--
Why not make it mandatory to file a living will with your doctor or
local hospital starting at age 50, or when a disability or illness is
diagnosed (or for that matter, make it mandatory, period)? That way
the person involved could choose in advance what kind of life support
measures they would like to have taken if/when they become
incapacitated.
Allan Matthews
@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, ladyha...@gmail.com says...
[snippage]
> Why not make it mandatory to file a living will with your doctor or
> local hospital starting at age 50, or when a disability or illness is
> diagnosed (or for that matter, make it mandatory, period)? That way
> the person involved could choose in advance what kind of life support
> measures they would like to have taken if/when they become
> incapacitated.
A nice idea, but living wills are not recognized as legally valid in all
places, thanks, in large measure, to the legislative efforts of the
Catholic Church and 'right to life' fundies.
They seem to prefer to force people to suffer when they would rather
not.
Also, such a requirement would be seen by some as a burden on the poor
who might not have the money to pay for such things.
allan
--
allan_m...@bigfoot.com
=========================================
"Did you make mankind after we made you?"
- from XTC's "Dear God"
=========================================
--sexkitten--
> In article <f3f561d9-ba9c-47de-b2c1-bd2f61c05e74
>
> [snippage]
>
> > Why not make it mandatory to file a living will with your doctor or
> > local hospital starting at age 50, or when a disability or illness is
> > diagnosed (or for that matter, make it mandatory, period)? That way
> > the person involved could choose in advance what kind of life support
> > measures they would like to have taken if/when they become
> > incapacitated.
>
> A nice idea, but living wills are not recognized as legally valid in all
> places, thanks, in large measure, to the legislative efforts of the
> Catholic Church and 'right to life' fundies.
>
> They seem to prefer to force people to suffer when they would rather
> not.
>
> Also, such a requirement would be seen by some as a burden on the poor
> who might not have the money to pay for such things.
>
> allan
> --
> =========================================
> "Did you make mankind after we made you?"
> - from XTC's "Dear God"
> =========================================
I just threw the idea out there as a starting point. I know it's not a
useful solution at the present time, it was just an idea for the
future. With assisted suicide laws and euthanasia becoming more
common, some kind of controls need to be put into place so that the
wishes of the dying or brain-dead person are honored, whatever it is
they may want.
Robibnikoff
"x" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:qTF2m.2061$ze1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Sure, and?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Day Brown
> So you are defending euthansia of people.
if it was harvested off the right plants, like barley, Lolium, &
Paspalum, all that happens is an acid trip. Which mite give you a better
attitude twards life.
But, it also creates strong uterine contractions which will kick out
anything in there. first, second, or third trimester. The woman should
still see a doctor to be sure there's no excessive bleeding, prolapse,
or other problem. But it'll be listed as a 'miscarriage', so its not an
'abortion', and you can quit worrying about it.
When women use herbs like this to cause miscarriage, you dont even know
its going on. That's a private matter between a woman and her witch.
Its real simple. The more draconian the law, the more women will turn to
witches. Who provide the service much cheaper.
SilentOtto
If Christian fundamentalists ever get enough power to make abortion
illegal on a national level, outlawing witch craft will be the next
order on the agenda.
Inquisition, anyone?
Nomen Publicus
Followed very rapidly with bans on many kinds of science and mathematics
(not just research, actual use of results) that contradicts their bible.
--
Atheists accept that "what we see in nature is what
we get." There is no magical basis to the universe.
bam
"Nomen Publicus" <zza...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote
> Atheists accept that "what we see in nature is what
> we get." There is no magical basis to the universe.
Don't ever go into investigatory work.
BAM
Nomen Publicus
You seem to have a very restricted view of what "see" can mean. Would
"observe" make it more clear? But then the quote gets more distant from
WYSIWYG.
--
Atheists are not anti-god, they are not at war with theists. They
just don't believe that gods, devils etc exist at all.
MarkA
It has become commonplace for all people being admitted to the hospital to
be asked to specify exactly what life support measures they do or don't
want, should the need arise. Of course, it doesn't help the person who
becomes incapacitated before arriving at the hospital, but at least it's a
start.
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
bam
"Nomen Publicus" <zza...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote in message
news:qsg1i6-...@buffy.sighup.org.uk...
> bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Nomen Publicus" <zza...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote
>>
>>> Atheists accept that "what we see in nature is what
>>> we get." There is no magical basis to the universe.
>>
>> Don't ever go into investigatory work.
>>
>> BAM
>
> You seem to have a very restricted view of what "see" can mean. Would
> "observe" make it more clear? But then the quote gets more distant from
> WYSIWYG.
Now you're making progress.
BAM
Nosterill
They did that with my father - don't resuscitate etc. all ticked - and
all they did was feed him, wash him and change his diaper. It still
took nine months of hell for him to die. You wouldn't put a dog
through that.
x
> In article <f3f561d9-ba9c-47de-b2c1-bd2f61c05e74
> @r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, ladyha...@gmail.com says...
>
> [snippage]
>
>> Why not make it mandatory to file a living will with your doctor or
>> local hospital starting at age 50, or when a disability or illness is
>> diagnosed (or for that matter, make it mandatory, period)? That way
>> the person involved could choose in advance what kind of life support
>> measures they would like to have taken if/when they become
>> incapacitated.
>
> A nice idea, but living wills are not recognized as legally valid in all
> places, thanks, in large measure, to the legislative efforts of the
> Catholic Church and 'right to life' fundies.
You call anti-abortionists "fundies".
I remember back when abortion was universally regarded as the moral
equivalent of murder. The spirit of the times has changed, but its
unreliability as a criterion of truth has not. Only a fool trusts it.
SilentOtto
> Allan Matthews wrote:
> > In article <f3f561d9-ba9c-47de-b2c1-bd2f61c05e74
>
> > [snippage]
>
> >> Why not make it mandatory to file a living will with your doctor or
> >> local hospital starting at age 50, or when a disability or illness is
> >> diagnosed (or for that matter, make it mandatory, period)? That way
> >> the person involved could choose in advance what kind of life support
> >> measures they would like to have taken if/when they become
> >> incapacitated.
>
> > A nice idea, but living wills are not recognized as legally valid in all
> > places, thanks, in large measure, to the legislative efforts of the
> > Catholic Church and 'right to life' fundies.
>
> You call anti-abortionists "fundies".
He does so for good reason.
> I remember back when abortion was universally regarded as the moral
> equivalent of murder. The spirit of the times has changed, but its
> unreliability as a criterion of truth has not. Only a fool trusts it.
Bullshit.
That abortion was illegal doesn't mean that it was universally
regarded as the moral equivalent of murder.
Far from it.
Neither do you, or those who subscribe to any form of religious
beliefs, have any monopoly on "truth".
There isn't one person who knows about "truth" with any more objective
certainty than any other person.
Anyone who claims they do is nothing but a liar and a charlatan.
Ray Fischer
>Allan Matthews wrote:
>>> Why not make it mandatory to file a living will with your doctor or
>>> local hospital starting at age 50, or when a disability or illness is
>>> diagnosed (or for that matter, make it mandatory, period)? That way
>>> the person involved could choose in advance what kind of life support
>>> measures they would like to have taken if/when they become
>>> incapacitated.
>>
>> A nice idea, but living wills are not recognized as legally valid in all
>> places, thanks, in large measure, to the legislative efforts of the
>> Catholic Church and 'right to life' fundies.
>
>You call anti-abortionists "fundies".
Fundies, cultists, terrorist supporters, misogynists, irrational, lunatics.
>I remember back when abortion was universally regarded as the moral
>equivalent of murder.
That never was the case, pro-liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
>Allan Matthews wrote:
>> In article <f3f561d9-ba9c-47de-b2c1-bd2f61c05e74
>> @r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, ladyha...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> [snippage]
>>
>>> Why not make it mandatory to file a living will with your doctor or
>>> local hospital starting at age 50, or when a disability or illness is
>>> diagnosed (or for that matter, make it mandatory, period)? That way
>>> the person involved could choose in advance what kind of life support
>>> measures they would like to have taken if/when they become
>>> incapacitated.
>>
>> A nice idea, but living wills are not recognized as legally valid in all
>> places, thanks, in large measure, to the legislative efforts of the
>> Catholic Church and 'right to life' fundies.
>You call anti-abortionists "fundies".
It's just a coincidence that a few too many anti-abortion wingnuts can
truthfully answer to that description.
>I remember back when abortion was universally regarded as the moral
>equivalent of murder. The spirit of the times has changed, but its
>unreliability as a criterion of truth has not. Only a fool trusts it.
That's amusing, since that attitude has gone a long way towards disappearing
in the four decades I've been a pro-choicer. Maybe you'll figure it out some
day.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: The 2009-10 opener in October, TBA