This is wonderfull. Partial birth abortion was a terrorist act.

This is a great day for the pro-life movement. We have Senator Sam Brownback to thank for rejecting Miers and getting Justice Alito on the court.

I never knew that. Thanks for informing me Mojo. I'm not ignorant anymore.

And I was a pretty big supporter. I need to learn to read the fine print.

The entire issue of abortion is one that must always be decided by the woman. She consults with her doctor, but it is up to her to make the choice.

The ruling today demonstrates just how anti-life the so-called pro-lifers really are. They would rather have a mother die than have a fetus removed.

In addition, the same republican hard-line wackos that support banning abortion also:

1) Support the death penalty (which actually does cause death, big surprise)
2) Oppose gun control. (even of the guns that are designed solely for taking human life)
3) Oppose national health care (thus causing poor and working class poor to die prematurely)
4) Oppose welfare (which might support all of these unwanted children)
5) Oppose distribution of condoms (which might prevent many unwanted pregnancies and fatal diseases)
6) Oppose teaching science in public school (which might make our children competitive in the modern world)
7) Support the war in Iraq, which has cost tens of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of lives
8) Oppose doing anything meaningful about climate change (which has already cost many lives and threatens our entire species)

The above is just a partial list. But, what it really says is that these people believe:

LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION AND ENDS AT BIRTH!!

How true, Scott. The decision taken today by the US Supreme Court, in any "modern society" is alarming and ridiculous. It shows how terribly, terribly far behind socially we are compared to the rest of the developed world.

Not only that, but it forces abortions into the streets, which is horribly dangerous.

Misanthropic Scott,
You said it perfectly, the Pro-Lifeer's hypocracy is unfathomable/unbelievable. War is at the top of their agenda as they go about bankrupting America. And Romney, one of them wants Jeb Bush for VP.
And they have highjacked our gov't and our now shredded US Constitution as they go about their 'missioncreep' of destroying America. I see nothing pro-life about their agenda for america it's all pro-death. Right wing religion+the slime of repub politics = pro-death for all but the 59 milliuon that voted for baby Bush.

I'd like to mention several things here, in the article and in the subsequent comments that I found interesting. I'll handle the comments first, then address the issues raised by the article itself.

Jake 3988 mentioned a bunch of things.

First of all, Jake talked about abortion being a decision to be made by the women. But the decision to have a child, or to have sex, is a decision made by both parents, or by both a man and a woman. Regardless of the subsequent decision, as sex is consentual, an abortion should be at the very least consensual as well. So I would disagree that it's just the women's decision.

Jake makes several conclusions about the "same republican hard-line wackos that support banning abortion".

I support banning abortion, I find that it is a violation of the geneva convention, as are certain specific abortion procedures, like partial birth abortions.

However, as far as your conclusions about what pro-life individuals support, you're rather mistaken. What you've done here is made a fallacy by association, where you attempt to discredit the initial argument by relating it to other arguments that are generally held to be bad ideas. That's incorrect and misleading. More than 50% of the country is pro-life, it's a pretty even split between pro-life and pro-choice supporters as of the last census.

1) I don't support the death penalty.
2) I support gun control, especially in the wake of the Virginia tech incident, I strongly believe restrictions on the sale of firearms is in order.
3) I find at the very least a social system, as the one in use in many european countries, is desperately needed in our country. I support national health care.
4) I support welfare as well, and would totally agree that we need to expand the welfare system.
5) I think birth control of any kind needs to be publicized and supported in a federal and state capacity.
6) I think that math and science is in desperately needed in the school systems, and that the no child left behind act isn't helping, or is hurting more than helping.
7) I support the war in Iraq. Your statistics are incorrect though, and misleading. American military casualties in the Iraq War have been under 5000. Which is the lowest casualty rate we've ever experienced in a similar period of time in any other war in our nation's history. American casualties in vietnam alone were 58,000, which was a far more unjust war than the Iraq War. At least in Iraq we removed Sadamm Hussein, who was guilty of genocide. World War II was even greater, THAT was in the hundreds of thousands and millions, same for world war I. And the Civil War's casualties exceeded all foreign wars combined! Over 100,000 casualties in the battle of Cold Harbor ALONE! So please don't exaggerate like that, it's just bullshit, and you know it.
8) I fully support the recommendations for all industrial nations as established by the Kyoto Accords to reduce industrial waste.

The above is just a partial list to disprove your inaccurate, misleading, and presumptuous bullshit. Don't try to connect random shit with the abortion case. That just proves how little you actually know about the debate.

In response to Misanthropic Scott:

You are referring to a period more than 50 years ago, where abortions were literally performed in street alleys with coat hangers. I would agree with you that this method was disgusting and terrible, but the suggestion that you're making, that success in legislation and law by the pro-life movement meaning a return to "street abortions" is grossly inaccurate. Our society having progressed considerably since those times, will not have to resort to such things. ;) Instead, all women would have to do is carry the child to term and then give it up for adoption.

In response to Austin:

Once again, as the previous respondants are also guilty of, you have committed a fallacy of association, where such an association largely doesn't exist. That's like saying people who are pro-choice are communists or something. Bullshit, you would say right? Saying that pro-life want war, is bullshit too. ;) Instead of just spouting rhetoric, why don't you guys come up with some concrete statistical proof, unbiased commentary, and something that actually resembles an argument.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allright, now I'll address the main article.

My apologies if I've offended anyone who is a more strident pro-choice activist. Though, I've been kind enough to read your comments, and this article, so perhaps you'll be kind enough to read mine. ^_^

Two definitions for partial-birth abortion as given by dictionary.com are:

1) an abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which the death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal

2) A late-term abortion, especially one in which a viable fetus is partially delivered through the cervix before being extracted.

Contrary, to the initial suggestion in the article, partial-birth abortion wasn't conceived by pro-life people, it was simply a term coined by modern science and medicine which has been involved in them. Removing the fetus, intact or otherwise, that far into the semester, is still a "partial birth abortion" and it's pretty disgusting. Since at that point, in the pregnancy, the fetus has a functioning lungs, heart, heartrate, brainwaves, etc. Clearly making it, at the very least, exist on a level equivalent with any other creature. It is a living breathing "entity", now if you are going to be an animal-rights activist, which I am as well, then why are you supporting abortion? That doesn't make sense, since animals, so the theory goes, don't have a soul or possess consciousness on a level equivalent with humans, and yet we still would protect them. A fetus is clearly at least functioning on a similar level.

As far as the decision flying in the face of previous court decisions regarding abortion. We could say the same thing about the amendment back in the 1920s which outlawed alcohol. And then a subsequent amendment repealed that amendment. So CLEARLY the second amendment, flew in the face of the first amendment which banned alcohol, yet I'm sure you would agree it was the correct decision to repeal that amendment. Just as it's the correct decision to reverse the decision made by Roe v Wade.

All your arguments, both the article and subsequent comments have done is produce pro-choice rhetoric.

You refer to pro-life as "anti-abortion" which is just stupid and it's just as bad as the people who go around having book burnings against evolution. >.> Secondly, you center the focus of the abortion debate on "health". -_- wtf?! You make the assumption that childbearing is a threat to women's lives, which is ludicrous. No wonder the birth rate in europe is so low that the death rate is greater! See, I can make a fallacy by association too, since all you noobs seem to be doing it. :O Your arguments are overtly hostile and aren't going to convince anyone. Also, by focusing on abortions as a health issue, you ignore the fact that it's a consensual sexual act.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

John,
You say, "Contrary, to the initial suggestion in the article, partial-birth abortion wasn't conceived by pro-life people, it was simply a term coined by modern science and medicine which has been involved in them."
That's simply not true.
Partial birth abortion is a non-medical term which emerged more than ten years ago in the campaigning for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995; when the bill first came around in Congress.
It loosely describes an intact D&X, or dilation and extraction, where the fetus is extracted whole, but for the most part it is a term created for legislative purposes. And the point here is that a D&X can sometimes save a mother's life--when extracting the fetus whole, rather than in pieces.
Gory, I know, but this is a health issue, like it or not. And the consensual argument doesn't hold when you find that a PBA is still banned in the case of rape and incest.

John:

So... pro-life isn't anti-abortion? Or, something? Or, what!?

I never referred to it as a health matter. In many cases, it is. In some cases, it is not.

However, prohibiting abortion does create a health issue, because it frequently moves the abortion procedure from legal, sterilized settings with competent doctors to backwater, shady-street locations with dirty instruments and people without proper medical training.

That's the biggest health issue here. Attempting to stop abortions is sort of like attempting to stop pot, or alcohol, by simply "disallowing" it. The world is far from that simple, and you can't get people to follow your religious-based rhetoric (oops, used the word!) simply by enacting laws and pleading with them to follow them.

John Metternich,

First and foremost, get the names correct. They are printed below the postings.

Second, in my comment, I said "In addition, the same republican hard-line wackos that support banning abortion also ..."

Clearly with your opinions you are neither hard-line nor republican. If you think you are republican then you must be ignoring the many ways in which your party is ignoring you.

As for your comment about "partial birth abortions", it is true that this is a non-medical term. This wikipedia page should make that clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

Lastly, a death rate outpacing a birth rate is a good thing. This planet cannot support its present numbers. Our food production is already in decline and we continue to breed like rabbits.

My apologies to Misanthropic Scott and thanks for his sarcasm. I'm unused to names being below the posts, and as such didn't realize it till after I'd made my post.

Regardless of whether or not partial birth abortion is a medical term or not, and given the very obvious nature of your bias, I find it difficult to take your arguments to the contrary as fact, it still acurrately describes the technique involved.

I'm a Moderate Republican. Republican is a general party definition, and within the party there are many, many different people holding a wide array of values and ideals.

What you were doing, was clearly rhetoric, designed for no better purpose than to whip up support against pro-life. I'm not saying this is entirely bad in and of itself. But given the fact that you had very little in the way of a genuine argument supported with factual information, it makes it a pretty much pointless and laudable post.

lol @ Austin. I'm not using any religious support for my argument. For you to classify my argument under a "religious rhetoric" category only goes to demonstrate your lack of a coherent logical argument if you have to denounce my argument by basically flaming it with extraneous information.

Yes, pro-life is anti-abortion. But by using the words "anti-abortion" it is just another way to file away the pro-life case without having to look at it, it's demeaning and pointless, and doesn't get anyone anywhere in the abortion debate. It's no different than saying that pro-lifers are "gun toting, hatred embracing fascists" or something like that. All you're doing is trying to stir up anger. I'm surprised you guys continue to do that, it's really pretty pointless.

If you don't have a real argument to refute my points, then just give up.

You'll also notice I was kind enough to always refer to your movement as "pro-choice" not "anti-life" or some bullshit like you're doing. At least I'm being courteous and not an asshole.

Also, both Elizabeth and Austin suggest it's a health issue. Your suggestion carries with it the insinuation that the vast number of abortions were done because the mother's health was in question at the time the abortion was performed. That's simply not the case. That's actually a misconstrued fact that was invented by the pro-choice movement. I hate to say it since it makes me sound so biased, but it's just the way it is. Go look up the facts in various united states government organizations pages, which deal with this kind of stuff.

Guys, I know you're ardent about women having the choice. But the reality is your arguments just don't hold water, especially when you're going to go all "anti" this and anti that on everyone. It's just bullshit and you're using it to actually avoid having to post a real argument.

I might check back, but if all I'm gonna see is "anti-abortion" and "partial birth abortion is fake" then I might as well not bother to respond.

Well, considering that you continue to purposefully misread the issues of health that I bring up, quite clearly, I believe I might as well not bother to respond, either.

John Metternich,

Yes, there are moderate republicans in the general population. But, watch how your elected officials vote. At least at the national level, there are few or no moderate republicans in office. Nearly all vote perfectly or nearly so down the republican line of issues that I mentioned in my first post. This is what I mean by "hard line republican".

Your party has left you. You just haven't noticed it yet.

The reason many people have stopped using the term pro-life, in favor of anti-abortion, just for the record, is that again, probably only in the "hard liners" and the extreme religious right, that make up the bulk of the so-called pro-lifers, the issues supported are generally pro-fetus and anti-born.

How could a true pro-lifer shoot a law abiding doctor?
How could a true pro-lifer set off explosives in populated areas?
How could a true pro-lifer physically assault women seeking medical care?
How could a true pro-lifer support the death penalty?
How could a true pro-lifer oppose handgun control?

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Obviously, you don't fit this particular mold. I recognize that some people don't and still oppose abortion. But, the majority of the anti-abortioners in this country do go right down the republican party platform on these and other issues.

I am interested in why John even posted in the first place and this is why I say that: His approach is that he will set the bounderies for all the terminology in the argument and that if his rules are not adherred to, than he will just cancel his participation. John went to great lengths to suggest that no one else had any factual arguments, but then proceeded to make a lot of statements that he then did not support with facts, either, such as:

1. Partial-Birth Abortion is a term adopted by the science and medical community - who and when, John? Please site.

2. The vast majority of Partial-Birth Abortions are not related to health issues - I would appreciate an exact percentage, John, because I'm still on the fence and knowing whether 5% of 8% of next years pregnancies will result in the death of the mother will have a lot to do with how I view this argument.

3. The health risk issue was baked up by the Pro-Choice movement - I would love to confront the smart and snarky Liberal who came up with that whopper. Pretending that pregnency can sometimes cause health concerns is pretty low and I think that the smart-ass Liberal who made that lie up will probably burn in Hell for all of eternity while being poked with sticks by men the color of spicy pickled sausages in a jar, sporting horns and forked tails. ;]

4. Repealing Roe vs. Wade is the same as alcohol prohibition and the subsequent overturning of prohibition. While I'm afraid some of these cut-throat Liberals will be crying 'that trivializes this argument' I think I get what you mean. However, prohibition being overturned more supports Austin's argument than your own - when you denie people their freedoms, they just do what they want on the sly; you haven't removed something from society that you disapprove of, but instead have forced it into the shadows and enrcouraged a subculture of 'criminal' behavior.

Intermittently serious and sarcastic as it may be, I hope this post isn't misconstrued as 'anti-John-Metternich'. I wouldn't sleep tonight if I thought I had made a moderate Republican cry.

If the damn-fool libs had not opposed Texas concealed carry, Ann Richards would have defeated Bush for Texas governor. And he would have never run for president. Likewise, the gun-control issue lost the dems both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

So ultimately, this unfortunate supreme court ruling was a direct result of the ignorance and prejudice of the antigun true beleivers, who were willing to sell out women and widows and orphans over a worthless cultural issue.

Well said Paul.

And, just to add to the encouragement of criminal behavior line of argument. Does anyone remember the rampant violent crime increases across the country in the 70s, 80s, and through the early 90s? Giuliani took credit for the crime reduction. But, the crime reduction was national and began just before he started implementing any programs.

The decrease in crime through the 90s far outpaced the expected statistical results for any of the measures implemented. It turns out that the crime dropped first in the five states that legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade, including New York. The crime dropped faster in states where abortion was more widely available and used. The crime dropped in other countries just about the same time after their legalizations of abortion.

It turns out that a large number of women actually know when they are not ready to adequately raise a child. All of the unwanted pregnancies that were terminated rather than being carried to term, never grew up to cause the expected blood bath of crime that was expected by the late 90s.

Abortion is probably not the best way to accomplish this. Good sex education including real information about risk of pregnancy and disease transmission, along with condom distribution, would probably do just as much to keep crime down and still prevent many of the abortions.

I find it amusing that many of the people that oppose abortion also oppose sex ed and condom distribution.

Either way though, birth control will still fail sometimes. Abortion must be a viable, legal, and safe alternative for women. As for specific cases like the late term abortions, if the pro-lifers were really pro-life, they would have at least included an exception for health of the mother. But they didn't. So, the vast majority (yes there are exceptions) are hypocrites whose morals have been horribly twisted by their religion.

To begin with, let me see if I can summarize the opening argument:

1. It is the constitutional right of every mother to choose whether or not she wants to have her child born into this world and live.
2. The partial birth abortion ban violates this right in prohibiting them from having a certain type of abortion.
3. Therefore, mothers who want abortions will be pushed into having the operation performed illegally, which will increase the danger to the mothers themselves, make their decision even more difficult, increase the danger to the doctors, etc.

Basically, it being argued that these partial birth abortion bans are wrong because they could possibly have some undesirable effects. This is the perfect example of an ad baculum fallacy, or appeal to force. This argument, gathered from the opening article, hangs on the crutch that if these bans are enforced, there is the potential that more harm will come to those trying to have abortions. When it comes down to it, this outcome has little to do with the actual argument and does nothing to prove its validity.
Yes, this is true and, in fact, this is the point o the law: to discourage women from having partial birth abortions. If they are still determined to have this procedure, they are not only taking the life of their child (which has somehow become acceptable in many cases), but they are also breaking the law. In effect, they are forced to be more responsible for their actions and the aftermath of those actions. I completely agree that the woman should have the choice to have a child or not… however, this choice should be in the form of choosing whether or not to engage in behavior that might result in becoming pregnant. The point here is that this opening argument really does nothing, other than pick on the history of certain terms. This, again, gets us nowhere in our discussion as it doesn’t matter what the procedure is called. The fact is that it allows for a child to be born and immediately murdered. Yes, this is putting it very bluntly, but this is a gross reality that must be faced (and one that our “pro-choice” friends constantly try to avoid with their “clever” jargon and rhetoric).
While we are on this note, as far as terminology goes this “movement” from using the term "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" is one coming from the "pro-choice" side of this issue and has no effect on the position, other than misrepresenting it. We can call these positions whatever we want, but arguing about these names doesn’t do anything to resolve the actual issue at hand. For example, they call themselves "pro-choice," but do we ever ask what choice they are wanting to make? Well, it is a choice that results in murder. They might as well be labeled as "pro-murder." Those of us who call ourselves "pro-life" do so because we believe that the real issue here is not the choice of the mother, but rather the survival of the baby. Of course many may disagree with my view that the unborn child is, in fact, a human. However, it seems clear to me that it is and if one truly looks closely at the facts and different arguments, it becomes clear that the positions claiming that the unborn is not human are very weak and unfounded.
Briefly, I would like to mention that I am completely opposed to abortions and do not think they should be allowed under any circumstances. A baby should not be killed simply because it was an “accident” or because it isn’t wanted by the mother. An innocent child should not be killed under any circumstances. In cases of rape or incest, why make the situation worse by adding the murder of a child to the rape of the mother? A baby should not be punished by death for actions of another person no matter how bad those actions may be. Furthermore, for every baby aborted there is a loving family willing to adopt them. I think that we, as a society, should be concerned about the welfare of the mother and the child, not only that of the mother.
The point is that there are most certainly other options available and abortion is not the only answer. I believe that our society has become far too dependent on abortion and also far too tolerant for it and what it does. I believe that if we were truly to accept what it is that abortion does we would see that, under no circumstances is it right to murder, even the most innocent and helpless members of our society.
There are many good arguments, debates, facts, evidence, etc. out there supporting banning abortion and, for now at least, I believe that this partial birth abortion ban is a step in the right direction. As far as this particular discussion goes, it’s about time we stopped haggling over semantics and got to the root of the debate. These arguments put forth here commit many fallacies, argue mostly over semantics, and overall basically miss the target completely (that is the main issue of the questionable morality of abortion).

I am sorry, but am I the only woman left in America with a heart? You people are talking about a child as though they are going to create a huge problem for the mother and should be taken care of before they can. Well let me ask you a question, does the BABY choose to be concieved? NO! How does any woman have the heart to blame a child for their mistake? If you are not ready to have a child, then do not have sex. It is really that simple. And if, for some strange reason you do get pregnant and don't want your baby, please contact me at tessamom486@yahoo.com and I will do whatever I can to help you.

Tessara White,

A point you may be missing is that there is no exception in this law for the health of the mother. If the mother's health is at risk late in her pregnancy, wouldn't you want to help her?

My real opinion on this is that if you want to reduce abortion, attack it at the source. Provide good solid sex education. Distribute condoms in school to save lives by not transmitting aids and to reduce teen pregnancy.

In short, I do not believe this is something that should be limited by law. Doctors must have all available tools in their arsenal to provide the best possible health care for all.

It will be good to outlaw the widespread use of abortion. Our native population will go up and we will not need immigrants to file jobs. Just think about the millions of babies killed. They could have grown up to take the place of the millions of immigrants. The Roman Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court agree with me.