Bush's partial birth abortion ban shot down by California Supreme Court Judge.

Heres the story.
story.news.yahoo.com...

Well unfortunatly it happend. I knew it would and was not suprised. I once posted a topic about how issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and such shouldn't be a reason to vote for a presidential cantidate. This is the reason why.

All it takes is one activist judge to shoot down an issue. There needs to be some sort of public way to override a supreme court decision such as this that has so much controversy involved. The majority of americans don't support this. Why should one person be able to decide the will of millions?

I really don't feel the issue here should be right or wrong. The issue is the fact that 2 elected bodies our house and our senate and our own president passed a bill banning this procedure. One judge in california has practically ended it and said its unconstitutional. How does this happen?

One of the guys here said oh that gives the people too much power. Our government was founded for the people by the people. Not for the judge by the judge. The judge is not even elected by the people they are appointed. How can one person go against the will of the entire congress and president. The people appointed our congress. One person who we will never know if their personal beliefs are part of the decision is the final say so in this. Please write your congressman about this is you feel this is wrong. Heres a link to make it easy.

www.house.gov...

Well I know the supreme court is just another set of the checks and balances but the way they have been deciding things lately just makes me sick. There has got to be a check and balance on them they do not need to be the final approving athority.

Oh and if you think partial birth is humane and is a given right go here and take a peek before you say anything else.

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION PHOTOGRAPHS
DON"T VIEW IF YOU CANNOT HANDLE VIEWING. EXTREMELY GRAPHIC, ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS. OF. ABORTED BABIES
www.abortiontv.com...
www.partial-birth.com...

Tell me that this is just a mass of cells now.
[Edited on 2-6-2004 by Hoppinmad1]

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by Hoppinmad1]

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by Hoppinmad1]

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
Well unfortunatly it happend. I knew it would and was not suprised. [Edited on 2-6-2004 by Hoppinmad1]

I know your frustration. But listen, this is not the end by a long shot. Just because this guy says it's unconstitutional does not negate the law, it only moves it up the pipeline towards the Supreme Court (which will probably agree with the judge, but I could be surprised).

As for majority of Americans being for this, I don't know. I'd be more happy to see this bill AND Roe vs. wade overturned. That way we all win.

So....let me ask you this......What gives either of you the right to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her own body? As I have said before......it'll never ever happen.....There are way to many women on this planet to let men decide what we can and can not do. I find that at times like this I wish men were the ones who had to pop out the kids and not women......then there would be no arguement.

California is a screwed up state IMO, I can't find anything good that comes from that state. Florida can produce better citrus and other veggies anyways.

Kind of makes you wonder why California gets hit year after year with major disasters or problems, more so that any other state.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Cearbhall]

Originally posted by Venus
So....let me ask you this......What gives either of you the right to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her own body? As I have said before......it'll never ever happen.....There are way to many women on this planet to let men decide what we can and can not do. I find that at times like this I wish men were the ones who had to pop out the kids and not women......then there would be no arguement.

do u realise what partial birth abortions are? they give birth then the doc kills the baby thats alive, it is not like normal abortion, its actually murder, what gives you the right to kill another for no reason? how can you live with yourself accepting murder as a right? it may be in your body but the baby isnt part of it after its born.

maybe men are the ones who dont accept abortion because we arent partial to having a baby and we can objectivly see it as wrong because it is, women are biased toward themselves so of course they think ts ok if its conventient for them, you have to live with it after you kill, i hope it makes them suffer if they kill a baby, makes me sick that women assume murder as a right, suger coat it all you want but it doesnt change what it is.

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by namehere]

All it takes is one activist judge to shoot down an issue. There needs to be some sort of public way to override a supreme court decision such as this that has so much controversy involved. The majority of americans don't support this. Why should one person be able to decide the will of millions?

oh....do you guys here that? Oh, I do, yup its a baby crying, wah wah.

Quit your complaining, Ditto on what Venus said.

You do realize thats the point of the system right? If we had some power to override judges' decisions wouldn't that put a little too much power to the people? Wouldn't that make us the new presidents? What would the point of a government even be then?

Originally posted by namehere
do u realise what partial birth abortions are? they give birth then the doc kills the baby thats alive, it is not like normal abortion, its actually murder, what gives you the right to kill another for no reason? how can you live with yourself accepting murder as a right? it may be in your body but the baby isnt part of it after its born.

PLEASE DON'T EVEN TRY TO LECTURE ME ON THIS ONE......YOU WILL LOOSE.
I am pro-choice..........I do not advocate murder......I fight for a woman right to choose and any restrictions placed on that, IMO, is constitutionally wrong. Let me give you a little education:

Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?
This is a topic that is rarely discussed during public debates:

1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.
2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including: She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.


What pro-lifers want, is in a case where the fetus is already dead or malformed, is to let the woman go ahead and carry it to term. Why shouldn't she, right? She was the one that got knocked up! Think before you post next time.


[Edited on 6/2/2004 by Venus]

Originally posted by Venus
So....let me ask you this......What gives either of you the right to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her own body? As I have said before......it'll never ever happen.....There are way to many women on this planet to let men decide what we can and can not do. I find that at times like this I wish men were the ones who had to pop out the kids and not women......then there would be no arguement.

What makes you think you may kill a child simply because you are the mother?
What makes you misunderstand the point that this is an unconstitutional and judicially activist block? Are you still operating under the new age instruction that this is a secular nation, not a nation that was based upon values and ethics straight out of the KJV?

For everyone, are you really surprised that such things are happening? Do you really think that this nation is never going to fall into the filthy abyss, just like Rome? It is going to get much worse. Those with no adherence to Judeo-Christian values, the values that made this nation strong, will continue to subvert the system and pervert the next generation. It is only a matter of time. But don't look so glum about it, it only means the countdown is very much underway!

Thats good, I am glad bush was overruled. Bush was selected with a minority of the public behind him. Now he has even less support than that. I dont want him making any decisions for the majority of the country.
The minority should not be making decisions for the majority. Im glad this judge was paying attention and doing her job.
Bravo!

Originally posted by MrJingles

oh....do you guys here that? Oh, I do, yup its a baby crying, wah wah.

Quit your complaining, Ditto on what Venus said.

You do realize thats the point of the system right? If we had some power to override judges' decisions wouldn't that put a little too much power to the people? Wouldn't that make us the new presidents? What would the point of a government even be then?

hello, murder is not a right, partial birth is an illusionary term, it is giving birth full term, the baby is alive, alert and everything then they cut its spinal chord, swirl their brain then the limbs are cut off and put in the garbage, its sick, evil and inhuman.

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by namehere]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What makes you think you may kill a child simply because you are the mother?

What makes you think you have a right to say I have to give birth to an unwanted/unplanned/unhealthy child?

Originally posted by ashley
Thats good, I am glad bush was overruled. Bush was selected with a minority of the public behind him. Now he has even less support than that. I dont want him making any decisions for the majority of the country.
The minority should not be making decisions for the majority. Im glad this judge was paying attention and doing her job.
Bravo!

I'm still voting for BUSH..........try again

Who made you God, allowing you to kill as you see fit? Unwanted? Should have used self control if you did not "want" the child. Probably unwanted because the child would cramp your style, and that can't be tolerated in a society that worships self over anything else. Unplanned? That means you can kill it? Unhealthy? So, you suggest we kill unhealthy people?

Rationalize however you want, it comes down to being a selfish scum, placing the desires and conveniances of one's self over the life of one who should be most secure with its mother.

This is nothing more than a sign of the times and an indicator of our national depravity.

Originally posted by Venus

PLEASE DON'T EVEN TRY TO LECTURE ME ON THIS ONE......YOU WILL LOOSE.
I am pro-choice..........I do not advocate murder......I fight for a woman right to choose and any restrictions placed on that, IMO, is constitutionally wrong. Let me give you a little education:

Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?
This is a topic that is rarely discussed during public debates:

1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.
2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including: She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.


What pro-lifers want, is in a case where the fetus is already dead or malformed, is to let the woman go ahead and carry it to term. Why shouldn't she, right? She was the one that got knocked up! Think before you post next time.


[Edited on 6/2/2004 by Venus]

atleast pro lifers think of others before themselves unlike your side, you disgust me, its not a right, it only exists because you whined so much about it being unfair.

Originally posted by Venus

What makes you think you have a right to say I have to give birth to an unwanted/unplanned/unhealthy child?

get over yourself, thats the same reason nazis were pro abortion and natural selection.

Oh, get over yourselves, the government has killed more people in its own wars than they ever will with abortion.

You think that just because it is a baby that it has any more right to live than the citizens of Iraq and the U.S soldiers being killed right now?

There is no difference between murder with a cause and one without (except maybe the prison term).

Pardon me, but that is a pretty moronic way to look at it. This nation has been to war many times, and usually for just cause and to save lives and sovereignty, while abortion is purely for the love of one's self. The child has not attacked the mother, the child is a baby.

Originally posted by MrJingles
Oh, get over yourselves, the government has killed more people in its own wars than they ever will with abortion.

You think that just because it is a baby that it has any more right to live than the citizens of Iraq and the U.S soldiers being killed right now?

There is no difference between murder with a cause and one without (except maybe the prison term).

i mean for about 50 million plus a few abortions each atleast per year

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by namehere]

Repeat after me......RIGHT TO CHOOSE. It's that simple folks. Just leave it up to the women...ok? It's so simple to say "it's murder". Have any of you EVER been preganant? Faced with having to raise a child? I have two and all the parents out there will say the same thing " I love my kids and I'd do it again...without question". I feel that way too. I am not saying that all preganancies should end in abortion. I am just saying leave it up to the pregnant woman. She is the one who has the cross to bear and has to live with the decision....NOT YOU.

You might want to defend the unborn, helpless child and I can respect that. What I don't respect is the mothers who go ahead and give birth then either abuse the children or let someone else take the burden of raising them. 2,426,730 GRANDPARENTS are raising their grandchildren in the USA.

Originally posted by Venus

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What makes you think you may kill a child simply because you are the mother?

What makes you think you have a right to say I have to give birth to an unwanted/unplanned/unhealthy child?

Pro choice here, however, Partial term abortions are murder. 24- 28 weeks and all of a sudden a woman chooses not to have it. Have you seen a baby born at 24- 28 weeks? I have and the idea that it is a medical procedure to crush the babies skull after it is out of the womb is barbaric at the very least. No amount of justification can coat it in "pretty wrapping paper." Even when the mothers life is at risk in the 24- 28 weeks it is feasible to try and save the childs life, and if the mother doesn't want it then that is what we have a social services agency for.

There has to be a line drawn, SURE a woman has a right to choose, but how about utilizing that choice in the first trimester.

This law only pertains to the partial abortion aspect. And not to be confused with a womans right to choose. If that baby can feel pain, which it can, then it is ethically unsound to make that choice.