Georgia's Move to Ban Abortion.

[Grave_n_idle]

But no, I don't think ignorance or fear is good enough reason to kill a fully viable homo-sapien once it can survive outside the body of its mother.

I was rather more thinking of forcing a 13 year old to go through the pain of delivery, as just the final element in her rape and abuse triumvirate.

[Galloism]

But no, I don't think ignorance or fear is good enough reason to kill a fully viable homo-sapien once it can survive outside the body of its mother.

I was rather more thinking of forcing a 13 year old to go through the pain of delivery, as just the final element in her rape and abuse triumvirate.

Is the abortion at that stage any less pain, really? They still have to pass the fetus somehow, I would think. Either you got to pass it through the crotch or take it out via surgery. If you go for the former, I don't personally see how it's any better to have it come out dead than alive unless you have some kind of knowledge I don't have. If it's the latter, I would think sedation would always be available.

Admittedly, I'm a little out of my knowledge range, but I'm always looking for more knowledge.

[Dyakovo]

But no, I don't think ignorance or fear is good enough reason to kill a fully viable homo-sapien once it can survive outside the body of its mother.

I was rather more thinking of forcing a 13 year old to go through the pain of delivery, as just the final element in her rape and abuse triumvirate.

Is the abortion at that stage any less pain, really? They still have to pass the fetus somehow, I would think. Either you got to pass it through the crotch or take it out via surgery. If you go for the former, I don't personally see how it's any better to have it come out dead than alive unless you have some kind of knowledge I don't have. If it's the latter, I would think sedation would always be available.

Admittedly, I'm a little out of my knowledge range, but I'm always looking for more knowledge.

Only in extreme circumstances is abortion performed in the third trimester (see When Women Have Abortions graph on Stages of Pregnancy and Fetal Development Introduction page), and as a result there is little information on the procedure itself. Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) (see Surgical Methods: Trimester 2) is the primary procedure used, but it is a more complicated procedure than in the second trimester. Because the fetus at this stage can be viable, law prohibits extraction of a live fetus. Therefore, fetal life must be terminated before the fetus is extracted from the uterus.(4) Also, as the gestational age increases so does the risk for uterine perforation, infection, bleeding, amniotic fluid embolism, and anesthetic reactions.

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)

The major method for surgical abortion during the second trimester is Dilation and Evacuation (D&E). It is typically preformed after the 13th month and requires the dilation or the cervix followed by the evacuation of the uterus.
Dilation of the cervix can be done in a simple manner by a synthetic dilator or a natural one. Dilapan, a synthetic dilator, ensures sterility and is easy to insert and remove, while Laminaria is seaweed and a natural dilator. It is important to estimate the gestation age to know how much the cervix needs to be dilated. If further dilation is necessary mechanical dilators can be used as needed.
After dilation is complete, a vacuum cannula is used to fully evacuate the fetus and the placenta.
This procedure is relatively quick and uncomplicated. The advantages of the D&E method are: relatively little bleeding (as opposed to the extent of bleeding associated with medical methods), the patient does not have to undergo the trauma of labor, and the successfulness of the procedure is apparent immediately after it is finished. The D&E is cheaper than a medical abortion and is deemed safer before 18 weeks gestation.

[Galloism]

Only in extreme circumstances is abortion performed in the third trimester (see When Women Have Abortions graph on Stages of Pregnancy and Fetal Development Introduction page), and as a result there is little information on the procedure itself. Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) (see Surgical Methods: Trimester 2) is the primary procedure used, but it is a more complicated procedure than in the second trimester. Because the fetus at this stage can be viable, law prohibits extraction of a live fetus. Therefore, fetal life must be terminated before the fetus is extracted from the uterus.(4) Also, as the gestational age increases so does the risk for uterine perforation, infection, bleeding, amniotic fluid embolism, and anesthetic reactions.

Now that's fucked up. Seriously, that is fucked up. So, because the fetus can survive outside of its mother, we have to kill it before taking it outside of its mother. That's an interesting bit of logic collective insanity, there.

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)

The major method for surgical abortion during the second trimester is Dilation and Evacuation (D&E). It is typically preformed after the 13th month and requires the dilation or the cervix followed by the evacuation of the uterus.
Dilation of the cervix can be done in a simple manner by a synthetic dilator or a natural one. Dilapan, a synthetic dilator, ensures sterility and is easy to insert and remove, while Laminaria is seaweed and a natural dilator. It is important to estimate the gestation age to know how much the cervix needs to be dilated. If further dilation is necessary mechanical dilators can be used as needed.
After dilation is complete, a vacuum cannula is used to fully evacuate the fetus and the placenta.
This procedure is relatively quick and uncomplicated. The advantages of the D&E method are: relatively little bleeding (as opposed to the extent of bleeding associated with medical methods), the patient does not have to undergo the trauma of labor, and the successfulness of the procedure is apparent immediately after it is finished. The D&E is cheaper than a medical abortion and is deemed safer before 18 weeks gestation.

So the fetus passes through the uterus (generally), but they suck it out with a vacuum cleaner (more or less). Interesting. I wonder how that compares to an induced labor with an epidural.

[Dyakovo]

Only in extreme circumstances is abortion performed in the third trimester (see When Women Have Abortions graph on Stages of Pregnancy and Fetal Development Introduction page), and as a result there is little information on the procedure itself. Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) (see Surgical Methods: Trimester 2) is the primary procedure used, but it is a more complicated procedure than in the second trimester. Because the fetus at this stage can be viable, law prohibits extraction of a live fetus. Therefore, fetal life must be terminated before the fetus is extracted from the uterus.(4) Also, as the gestational age increases so does the risk for uterine perforation, infection, bleeding, amniotic fluid embolism, and anesthetic reactions.

Now that's fucked up. Seriously, that is fucked up. So, because the fetus can survive outside of its mother, we have to kill it before taking it outside of its mother. That's an interesting bit of logic collective insanity, there.

Yes, it is a bit odd.

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)

The major method for surgical abortion during the second trimester is Dilation and Evacuation (D&E). It is typically preformed after the 13th month and requires the dilation or the cervix followed by the evacuation of the uterus.
Dilation of the cervix can be done in a simple manner by a synthetic dilator or a natural one. Dilapan, a synthetic dilator, ensures sterility and is easy to insert and remove, while Laminaria is seaweed and a natural dilator. It is important to estimate the gestation age to know how much the cervix needs to be dilated. If further dilation is necessary mechanical dilators can be used as needed.
After dilation is complete, a vacuum cannula is used to fully evacuate the fetus and the placenta.
This procedure is relatively quick and uncomplicated. The advantages of the D&E method are: relatively little bleeding (as opposed to the extent of bleeding associated with medical methods), the patient does not have to undergo the trauma of labor, and the successfulness of the procedure is apparent immediately after it is finished. The D&E is cheaper than a medical abortion and is deemed safer before 18 weeks gestation.

So the fetus passes through the uterus (generally), but they suck it out with a vacuum cleaner (more or less). Interesting. I wonder how that compares to an induced labor with an epidural.

No idea

[Galloism]

Yes, it is a bit odd.

*starts writing his congressman*

No idea

I'll admit, I am somewhat ignorant on the finer points of pregnancy, labor, and medical procedures of that... nature.

[Elaborate Design]

No idea

I'll admit, I am somewhat ignorant on the finer points of pregnancy, labor, and medical procedures of that... nature.

I imagine this is less destructive for your bodily integrity, but that might just be the wording of quoted article...

[The Cat-Tribe]

Only in extreme circumstances is abortion performed in the third trimester (see When Women Have Abortions graph on Stages of Pregnancy and Fetal Development Introduction page), and as a result there is little information on the procedure itself. Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) (see Surgical Methods: Trimester 2) is the primary procedure used, but it is a more complicated procedure than in the second trimester. Because the fetus at this stage can be viable, law prohibits extraction of a live fetus. Therefore, fetal life must be terminated before the fetus is extracted from the uterus.(4) Also, as the gestational age increases so does the risk for uterine perforation, infection, bleeding, amniotic fluid embolism, and anesthetic reactions.

Now that's fucked up. Seriously, that is fucked up. So, because the fetus can survive outside of its mother, we have to kill it before taking it outside of its mother. That's an interesting bit of logic collective insanity, there.

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)

The major method for surgical abortion during the second trimester is Dilation and Evacuation (D&E). It is typically preformed after the 13th month and requires the dilation or the cervix followed by the evacuation of the uterus.
Dilation of the cervix can be done in a simple manner by a synthetic dilator or a natural one. Dilapan, a synthetic dilator, ensures sterility and is easy to insert and remove, while Laminaria is seaweed and a natural dilator. It is important to estimate the gestation age to know how much the cervix needs to be dilated. If further dilation is necessary mechanical dilators can be used as needed.
After dilation is complete, a vacuum cannula is used to fully evacuate the fetus and the placenta.
This procedure is relatively quick and uncomplicated. The advantages of the D&E method are: relatively little bleeding (as opposed to the extent of bleeding associated with medical methods), the patient does not have to undergo the trauma of labor, and the successfulness of the procedure is apparent immediately after it is finished. The D&E is cheaper than a medical abortion and is deemed safer before 18 weeks gestation.

So the fetus passes through the uterus (generally), but they suck it out with a vacuum cleaner (more or less). Interesting. I wonder how that compares to an induced labor with an epidural.

Um. We are talking entirely about medically necessary abortions, as they aren't allowed in the third trimester/after-viability, otherwise.

So, it is to save the life or health of the mother than the unborn is being destroyed in this very, very rare form of abortion.

[Galloism]

Um. We are talking entirely about medically necessary abortions, as they aren't allowed in the third trimester/after-viability, otherwise.

So, it is to save the life or health of the mother than the unborn is being destroyed in this very, very rare form of abortion.

I'm aware, and I fully support medically necessary abortion at any stage, as I've said previously.

I do not understand though, why the fetus must legally be killed to take it out of the body of its mother, when it can survive out of the body of its mother on its own (presumably). Perhaps you can explain that to me.

We drifted into elective late term abortions, thanks to Grave-n-idle, which don't generally happen because they're banned in most places and well... it would make no sense anyway. My position that elective late-term abortions should be banned, but not medically necessary ones.

[Elaborate Design]

And that, that is a very good point.

It does make the comparison with regular birth rather moot, too, in my opinion.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Um. We are talking entirely about medically necessary abortions, as they aren't allowed in the third trimester/after-viability, otherwise.

So, it is to save the life or health of the mother than the unborn is being destroyed in this very, very rare form of abortion.

I'm aware, and I fully support medically necessary abortion at any stage, as I've said previously.

I do not understand though, why the fetus must legally be killed to take it out of the body of its mother, when it can survive out of the body of its mother on its own (presumably). Perhaps you can explain that to me.

We drifted into elective late term abortions, thanks to Grave-n-idle, which don't generally happen because they're banned in most places and well... it would make no sense anyway. My position that elective late-term abortions should be banned, but not medically necessary ones.

Actually, I don't believe that statement about the fetus needing to be killed to comply with the law to be legally or medically accurate.

There essentially aren't any such things as elective late-term abortions. Talking about them is a little like talking about whether it is ethical to rape unicorns.

I note you consider a 13-year-old incest victims need to terminate a pregnancy "elective" and shouldn't be allowed late-term. I don't necessarily agree with you there. On a case-by-case basis, such abortions may be unethical, but I don't support a blanket ban on such cases.

[Galloism]

Actually, I don't believe that statement about the fetus needing to be killed to comply with the law to be legally or medically accurate.

Well that's good. It made no sense.

There essentially aren't any such things as elective late-term abortions. Talking about them is a little like talking about whether it is ethical to rape unicorns.

I raped a unicorn once.

Universe started it I believe, saying that elective abortions should be allowed all the way up until birth. I started arguing with him on principle, because I feel that's a ridiculous thing to say. Now, granted, it's already illegal, and I fully support that, but his position was... irritating to me, so I started arguing with it.

I note you consider a 13-year-old incest victims need to terminate a pregnancy "elective" and shouldn't be allowed late-term. I don't necessarily agree with you there. On a case-by-case basis, such abortions may be unethical, but I don't support a blanket ban on such cases.

Well, assuming the previous quantifier was already satisfied (the fetus does not cause any significant medical risk to the child), what situations could you describe where it would be ethical to elect to late-term abort that fetus?

[Dyakovo]

Actually, I don't believe that statement about the fetus needing to be killed to comply with the law to be legally or medically accurate.

I, as well, have no idea about it, the info was from the first site I found with info about it and I was too lazy to try verifying it.

[Concurria]

I always do. I'm also fairly certain I'm older than you.

Never stopped me before.

Which is why we give rights to people, not clumps of cells that might one day become people if all goes well for them.

Three points: You are a "clump of cells." I am a "clump of cells." All the human beings participating in this thread now are all "clumps of cells." All multi-celled organisms are "clumps of cells." Your choice of wording doesn't prove your point. It only demonstrates your cheeky imagination.

Last point: Fetuses are human beings. Wasn't this already discussed?

The problem comes when lawmakers try to overstep the bounds of their authority and make laws which interfere with individuals' rights, such as, say, the right to privacy and the right to bodily autonomy.

Who defines those boundaries? You? Who will agree with you? Your clone? I see government as a community of individuals working together to effectively govern, regulate, and lead a nation of people. The government follows a common philosophy. In our case, key parts of that philosophy are expressed in fundamental documents.

You allude to something more grand; as though the right is concretely defined somewhere. What has bothered me is that you speak of these rights as though they are written on some massive stone tablet sitting next to you and you act like: "Here, they are right here! Can't you see them?" No! I can't, because it isn't that simple. People need to determine said rights. What are we overstepping? That is left to be determined.

Lastly, I find it worth mentioning that there is no expressed right to privacy in the constitution; that such a right has been derived and interpreted. (Hey what do you know!)

Dying because you couldn't get a needed medical procedure performed safely is stupid.

On both ends.

Yup. I absolutely sanction the killing of even born human beings who are trying to use your body against your will.

"Even"? You say that as though the fetus is among them.

If someone is attempting to rape or murder you, you are well within your rights to kill them if that's what it takes to make them stop.

...
...
I fear we have met elsewhere.

Why on earth would I give something that isn't even a person rights that no born person possesses?

Because no born person is in utero.

[Ashmoria]

Um. We are talking entirely about medically necessary abortions, as they aren't allowed in the third trimester/after-viability, otherwise.

So, it is to save the life or health of the mother than the unborn is being destroyed in this very, very rare form of abortion.

I'm aware, and I fully support medically necessary abortion at any stage, as I've said previously.

I do not understand though, why the fetus must legally be killed to take it out of the body of its mother, when it can survive out of the body of its mother on its own (presumably). Perhaps you can explain that to me.

We drifted into elective late term abortions, thanks to Grave-n-idle, which don't generally happen because they're banned in most places and well... it would make no sense anyway. My position that elective late-term abortions should be banned, but not medically necessary ones.

if its alive you have to work hard to make it survive. especially if it is close to full term. otherwise you have to watch your baby die. i suppose that some people are OK with that, some are not.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Do you all realize that there's no way to reach a common ground on this topic, right? There's two sides and that's it. There's the side that is pro-life, and may they be blessed and there's the pro-choice side, may they also be blessed. That we can all debate pros and cons, that we can all talk about wether the state of the fetus is parasitical or not, that the baby is a human being or not while in the womb, that it is the woman's choice alone or that the father has a say, we can all do that, back and forth. To no avail.

In the end, and read this carefully, in the end the decision lies within the hands of the mother and the father. I wouldn't go so far as calling anyone a murderer or a beast until I have to go through the decision making process, myself.

[Galloism]

Do you all realize that there's no way to reach a common ground on this topic, right? There's two sides and that's it. There's the side that is pro-life, and may they be blessed and there's the pro-choice side, may they also be blessed. That we can all debate pros and cons, that we can all talk about wether the state of the fetus is parasitical or not, that the baby is a human being or not while in the womb, that it is the woman's choice alone or that the father has a say, we can all do that, back and forth. To no avail.

In the end, and read this carefully, in the end the decision lies within the hands of the mother and the father. I wouldn't go so far as calling anyone a murderer or a beast until I have to go through the decision making process, myself.

Beating a dead horse is what we do.

[Minnas]

Do you all realize that there's no way to reach a common ground on this topic, right? There's two sides and that's it. There's the side that is pro-life, and may they be blessed and there's the pro-choice side, may they also be blessed. That we can all debate pros and cons, that we can all talk about wether the state of the fetus is parasitical or not, that the baby is a human being or not while in the womb, that it is the woman's choice alone or that the father has a say, we can all do that, back and forth. To no avail.

In the end, and read this carefully, in the end the decision lies within the hands of the mother and the father. I wouldn't go so far as calling anyone a murderer or a beast until I have to go through the decision making process, myself.

Beating a dead horse is what we do.

Is there something... more meaningful that you can add to the debate?

[Milks Empire]

Do you all realize that there's no way to reach a common ground on this topic, right? There's two sides and that's it. There's the side that is pro-life, and may they be blessed and there's the pro-choice side, may they also be blessed. That we can all debate pros and cons, that we can all talk about wether the state of the fetus is parasitical or not, that the baby is a human being or not while in the womb, that it is the woman's choice alone or that the father has a say, we can all do that, back and forth. To no avail.

In the end, and read this carefully, in the end the decision lies within the hands of the mother and the father. I wouldn't go so far as calling anyone a murderer or a beast until I have to go through the decision making process, myself.

Beating a dead horse is what we do.

Ain't that the truth?

Do you all realize that there's no way to reach a common ground on this topic, right? There's two sides and that's it. There's the side that is pro-life, and may they be blessed and there's the pro-choice side, may they also be blessed. That we can all debate pros and cons, that we can all talk about wether the state of the fetus is parasitical or not, that the baby is a human being or not while in the womb, that it is the woman's choice alone or that the father has a say, we can all do that, back and forth. To no avail.

In the end, and read this carefully, in the end the decision lies within the hands of the mother and the father. I wouldn't go so far as calling anyone a murderer or a beast until I have to go through the decision making process, myself.

Beating a dead horse is what we do.

Is there something... more meaningful that you can add to the debate?

Is there some way... you could not be such a stick-in-the-mud?
Lighten up a little bit! You might actually have some fun!

[Galloism]

Do you all realize that there's no way to reach a common ground on this topic, right? There's two sides and that's it. There's the side that is pro-life, and may they be blessed and there's the pro-choice side, may they also be blessed. That we can all debate pros and cons, that we can all talk about wether the state of the fetus is parasitical or not, that the baby is a human being or not while in the womb, that it is the woman's choice alone or that the father has a say, we can all do that, back and forth. To no avail.

In the end, and read this carefully, in the end the decision lies within the hands of the mother and the father. I wouldn't go so far as calling anyone a murderer or a beast until I have to go through the decision making process, myself.

Beating a dead horse is what we do.

Is there something... more meaningful that you can add to the debate?

You first. I've been making meaningful posts for pages now, whereas you came in here and immediately sniped at me.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Three points: You are a "clump of cells." I am a "clump of cells." All the human beings participating in this thread now are all "clumps of cells." All multi-celled organisms are "clumps of cells." Your choice of wording doesn't prove your point. It only demonstrates your cheeky imagination.

Um. Some persons have characteristics that make them entitled to rights. Some entities don't. A clump of cells with no working brain system is pretty clearly in the second category.

The problem comes when lawmakers try to overstep the bounds of their authority and make laws which interfere with individuals' rights, such as, say, the right to privacy and the right to bodily autonomy.

Who defines those boundaries? You? Who will agree with you? Your clone? I see government as a community of individuals working together to effectively govern, regulate, and lead a nation of people. The government follows a common philosophy. In our case, key parts of that philosophy are expressed in fundamental documents.

You allude to something more grand; as though the right is concretely defined somewhere. What has bothered me is that you speak of these rights as though they are written on some massive stone tablet sitting next to you and you act like: "Here, they are right here! Can't you see them?" No! I can't, because it isn't that simple. People need to determine said rights. What are we overstepping? That is left to be determined.

1. If there are no such thing as rights, then you can shut up about the right to life, correct?

2. Even in the skewed view you state above (which appears to be a mere argument of momentary convenience) we have our rights enshrined in the fundamental document that is the U.S. Constitution.

Lastly, I find it worth mentioning that there is no expressed right to privacy in the constitution; that such a right has been derived and interpreted. (Hey what do you know!)

It wasn't worth mentioning as it is fucking irrelevant and ignorant. Whether or not a right or liberty interest is expressly stated in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't protected by the Constitution.

As the Supreme Court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992):

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." .... ... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 -99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684 -686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481 -482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id. at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C.J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id. at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id. at 502-507, (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 -535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 -403 (1923).

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S., at 543 (dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 -222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

...

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html

To further illustrate the point, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "expressly stated" in the Constitution but that are protected by the Constitution:

• the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
• the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
• the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
• the right to travel within the United States
• the right to marry or not to marry
• the right to make one's own choice about having children
• the right to have children at all
• the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
• the right to custody of one's children
• the right to choose and follow a profession
• right to bodily integrity

Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

[Grave_n_idle]

Now that's fucked up. Seriously, that is fucked up. So, because the fetus can survive outside of its mother, we have to kill it before taking it outside of its mother. That's an interesting bit of logic collective insanity, there.

No, it is logic.

If you deliver a live fetus through the abortion procedure, you're opening yourself up to all kinds of legal repurcussions. Not least being, if it dies because it was premature, that can be blamed on your 'negligence'.

So the fetus passes through the uterus (generally), but they suck it out with a vacuum cleaner (more or less). Interesting. I wonder how that compares to an induced labor with an epidural.

I've watched childbirth up close and personal. My boy was born literally right into my hands. It's hard to keep focused on 'the miracle of birth' when you see your beloved's sex organs tear backwards. It's even harder to maintain that kind of serenity when the midwife whips out - I shit you not - what look like industrial shears, and chops it open a bit.

The advantage of abortion of a non-live fetus, is that you don't have to worry about both patients. You can do whatever it takes to make sure your main patient survives - especially of concern if you're talking about one of those 13-year-olds we were talking about earlier.

Seriously. You want to get an idea about childbirth? Imagine trying to shit a football.

[Grave_n_idle]

Do you all realize that there's no way to reach a common ground on this topic, right? There's two sides and that's it. There's the side that is pro-life, and may they be blessed and there's the pro-choice side, may they also be blessed. That we can all debate pros and cons, that we can all talk about wether the state of the fetus is parasitical or not, that the baby is a human being or not while in the womb, that it is the woman's choice alone or that the father has a say, we can all do that, back and forth. To no avail.

In the end, and read this carefully, in the end the decision lies within the hands of the mother and the father. I wouldn't go so far as calling anyone a murderer or a beast until I have to go through the decision making process, myself.

Unfortunately, 'reaching common ground' isn't really the argument. The argument is about whether people should be ALLOWED to make those choices you just said should be within the hands of the mother and father.

[Grave_n_idle]

Is there something... more meaningful that you can add to the debate?

You first. I've been making meaningful posts for pages now, whereas you came in here and immediately sniped at me.

Which - it is worth pointing out, may well come under the Moderations rules for griefing.

I'm not usually one to run to moderation, but I can't be the only one getting bored of watching Minnas work out whatever it is that's bugging her, by posting sniping responses in every second thread.

[Galloism]

Is there something... more meaningful that you can add to the debate?

You first. I've been making meaningful posts for pages now, whereas you came in here and immediately sniped at me.

Which - it is worth pointing out, may well come under the Moderations rules for griefing.

I'm not usually one to run to moderation, but I can't be the only one getting bored of watching Minnas work out whatever it is that's bugging her, by posting sniping responses in every second thread.

I'm not either. I consider myself a rather patient individual, but even I am growing rather tired of it.