Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.

[Fleamo]

-Ronny Regan Sr.

So the Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Carhart, upheld a ban on an abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction, representing a mere .17% of all abortions in the United States. 

Essentially the doctor would take the fetus partially out of the mother's body, terminate, and then pull the terminated fetus completely out.  Note that this is a second-trimester abortion procedure, because the fetus is large enough to require dilation, and a relatively small number(about 2% of abortions after 16 weeks are due to a late-diagnosed fetal problem) of second trimester abortions are due to health concerns.

So.  Is this right?  Should this procedure of abortion be banned?  Is it proper that the Supreme Court upheld the ban?  Does Congress have the authority to ban this procedure?

[ShadowCat]

-Ronny Regan Sr.
(...due to a late-diagnosed fetal problem) of second trimester abortions are due to health concerns.

So.  Is this right?  Should this procedure of abortion be banned?

I don't think so.  If a mother does not want the baby, and feels like she needs to do the abortion this way, then so be it.  Women have a right to their bodies.   

  Is it proper that the Supreme Court upheld the ban?

No.  Abortion is abortion, and the mother can decide how she wants to terminate her young, if she wants to do so.

Does Congress have the authority to ban this procedure?

They have it, but somewhere along the lines, this goes against one of the amendments.  Any version of abortion should be open to any mother who wants to terminate.

I may have used a lot of the same reasoning here, but whatever.  Women should be allowed to terminate if they want.  It may go against my religion, and this, that and the other, but if a mother doesn't want the fetus, then she can give it up.  It's as simple as that.

[JordAnime]

.  If a mother does not want the baby, and feels like she needs to do the abortion this way, then so be it.  Women have a right to their bodies.   

Does a woman have  a right to murder her child if she just gave birth to, I mean it came out of her body?  Does a woman have the right to use a contraceptive?  They also have the right not to have sex.  Once she makes a choice to have sex and gets pregnant, if she doesn't want t a baby, then get the abortion as soon as possible, not in the third trimester.  If you don't want the child and you just realize that before you're about to give birth, put it up for adoption.

Is it proper that the Supreme Court upheld the ban?  Does Congress have the authority to ban this procedure?

Yes and yes, they have the power, but we have the power to elect congress, the supreme courts a lot tougher to deal with, but suffice it to say, it's a representative democracy.

[Haru to Ashura]

I support abortion if done properly at the proper time.  But come second trimester, no.  That's killing a living organism.  By then, the fetus is very developed - in fact, go look at a picture of one, and it will already resemble a human baby.  Hell, there are a handful of premie babies somewhat near that age that were born that early and actually survived - if that doesn't show you that you're killing a living human being, what will?

If a mother does not want the baby, and feels like she needs to do the abortion this way, then so be it.  Women have a right to their bodies. 

She has the right to her own body, but does she have the right to the baby's body?  By this time, that baby has a body.  So, no, your argument doesn't quite add up. 

Plus, there's a much simplier option.  If she doesn't want the baby, then just give it up for adoption.  Why does no one ever think of adoption in these situations?  Honestly.

[Hyruleansoldier]

I think nobody really wants to be confronted with the real-life ugliness of the procedure.

But it happens, and will continue to happen.  I'm pro choice, what with rapists and health risks - slightly less with a simple "not ready", but then it's hard to not get emotional wrt "new life".

Although it should be, in the first place, the woman's choice.  Having a baby at a really unopportune moment could ruin more lives (that of the mother-to-be, her boyfriend (or not, very often), her parents and family, friends, and... the kid itself.  Cause yes, if the girl/woman is REALLY not ready, I don't think the life of the baby is worth all that much.

And you say adoption, but that might be even harder than abortion...  I am not a woman, but at least abortion is a definite process, no consequences, whereas giving your child up for adoption entails 1) having to see it born - your firstborn (mostly) - and having to kill that special moment because you give it away
and 2) the fact that one day in the future this kid may want to meet its parents, and then all the nasty feelings come back.

So in light of those things, I think abortion is the more "humane" thing to do for all parties in the end...

But then you have to not be thinking about the gross process that it usually is.  Mental images will do nasty things to one...

[brenna]

First of all, abortion is a poor form of birth control. I'm sorry, but there are things called condoms, the pill, natural family planning (I don't know how effective that is...), and the injection that prevent this situation. And even if those fail, there's a thing called adoption.

Unless it's because of a health risk, I don't support abortion... even though I define myself as prochoice. It's ultimately the woman's decision, but I don't believe that abortion under most circumstances is right. It's a terrifying procedure. I saw pictures of techniques used and aborted fetuses earlier this week, and I was horrified... but if it's declared illegal, the back alley abortions will occur. As a parent in the future, what call would you rather hear, "Your daughter has an abortion scheduled tomorrow" or "Your daughter died in a back alley abortion?"

[Fleamo]

Unless it's because of a health risk, I don't support abortion... even though I define myself as prochoice. It's ultimately the woman's decision, but I don't believe that abortion under most circumstances is right.

I think this is an important contingent of people, people who think that.  I'm one too.  I don't support women getting abortions except in the worst of cases(underage incest rape where both lives are at risk?*), but I think it should be legal.  "Safe, legal, and rare" was the Clinton phrase for it. 

This, though, is kind of a different story.  It's not really about banning abortion, it's about banning a specific and particularly gruesome type of abortion.  And the federal government does have the authority to regulate this kind of thing...like outlawing hanging if you think about it. 

I don't like the precedent this sets, but I'm not particularly against the specific law/court case decision.

-----
*That's not the only thing I agree with, it's just an over-the-top terrible terrible "worst of cases" scenario.

[Adam]

I don't like the precedent this sets, but I'm not particularly against the specific law/court case decision.

That's pretty much where I stand on this.  On moral grounds, I oppose to abortions this late in the pregnancy, as the fetus at this point usually has a pretty well functioning brain and nervous system, and I'm no so big into killing self-aware, cognitive, thinking organisms.  However, I certainly don't think that my, or anyone's reasoning is enough to warrant a federal ban on the operation.

My big issue with the decision is that I think the Supreme Court really overstepped its bounds on this one.  In my opinion, this is a big time "leave it to the individual states to decide" sort of issue, and now they've kinda shot that plan to hell.  Or at the very least, they've set the precedent that'll allow it to be shot to hell.  Not cool, Supreme Court.  Not cool.

[Haru to Ashura]

And you say adoption, but that might be even harder than abortion...  I am not a woman, but at least abortion is a definite process, no consequences, whereas giving your child up for adoption entails 1) having to see it born - your firstborn (mostly) - and having to kill that special moment because you give it away
and 2) the fact that one day in the future this kid may want to meet its parents, and then all the nasty feelings come back.

Sorry to get nasty, but what you said offends me far more than the entire abortion argument.  First things first:

When a woman who knows that she does not want to keep the baby decides to give it away for adoption, this decision has obviously been reached before the actual moment of birth.  What emotional scarring there is [unless of a case of rape] her own damn fault for getting knocked up in the first place.  Instead, she  should be happy.  The baby is being transferred to, presumably, an unwed mother who might not be able to afford the best care for her baby to a loving couple who will give that baby all the chance in the world to suceed.  Adoption is an act of love for the child; it's a mother who knows what's best.  There's no "moment killing" or "nasty feelings".  That's a load of bull, and you obviously have no experience to back those assumptions up.

Also, in most modern adoptions of this nature, since the mother knows that she wants to give away the baby ahead of time, parents will also be selected ahead of time.  It is a thoroughly planned-out process.  It's arguable that adoptee parents are much more suitable for parenthood than biological parents.  Adoptive parents are required to go to child care classes, get thorough background checks, and have to meet with the mother and with social workers.  Biological parents, on the other hand..."our condom broke, so...lawl!"

Myself, I am adopted.  My adoptee parents had got to take me strait out of the hosptial, when I was 3 days old - it's not like some sort of silly orphan girl annie story.  They are the parents I grew up with every step of the way, just like regular parents and biological children.  Like many happily adopted children, I have no desire to ever meet my biological family - THIS is my real family - the people who raised me.  I appreciate my biological mother for the gift of life, but I would never call her my mother.  To me, that woman more like an egg donor or a surrogate mother.  (Fyi, I've never met her, and can't even recall her name.)  No teenage angst or emotional scarring; honestly, honestly, I have no idea where that silly stereotype came from.  I've met many, many adopted children in my life, and they're absolutely no differnet than biological children; many of us even have siblings that ARE biological (myself included) and our parents treat us no differently from them.  Aside from the occasional freak-case,  born-adopted children (meaning, adopted at birth) are treated as regular children and are perfectly happy with their new families.  And if I ever did by chance meet the biological parents...well, so what?  I have no nasty feelings towards her.  She knew what was best and made the choice that benefitted me most.  What more could a child ask for?  So, "bringing back nasty feelings?"  Please don't try to base logical debate off of movie cliches next time, THANKS.

So, are you still saying that killing the fetus is more humane?  I'll put this is lightly as I can: what the hell is wrong with you?

[Carl Jr.]

 Note that this is a second-trimester abortion procedure, because the fetus is large enough to require dilation, and a relatively small number(about 2% of abortions after 16 weeks are due to a late-diagnosed fetal problem) of second trimester abortions are due to health concerns.

Just so you guys know, this means basically that a very small percentage of pregnant women develop a condition that will kill them if an abortion is not executed, meaning it's either the mother or the baby.

 What the supreme court has done will completely eliminate something most doctors won't do anyways (a late period abortion: imagine how many dumb paris hilton types walk in at like the last stages wanting an abortion, and think of the doctors shaking their heads.) While this is a very good thing and done in the name of the majority, it pretty much seals the fate of those very few women.