03 Jun '09 17:49>
Originally posted by generalissimolet's have a stir-fry!
yes, in order to avenge his death we should kill some more babies.
nice.
Originally posted by ScriabinCorrect me if I'm wrong (I'm too lazy to look at the case right now). Isn't that quote limited to pre-viability?
Under Casey an abortion law is unconstitutional on its face if, "in a large fraction of the cases in which [the law] is relevant, it will operate as a substantial obstacle to a woman's choice to undergo an abortion." 112 S. Ct. at 2830.
Originally posted by ScriabinThe pro-life position is based on the idea that all fetuses are fully human from the moment of conception - in which case, we're allowing a million or so human beings to be murdered every year in the US. If someone believes this, it would be immoral and irresponsible if they did NOT take the "fundamentalist Christian position".
been contributing member of PP for 35 yrs
also contribute to NARAL, though my wife is PO'd at them for abandoning Hilary.
she's been an officer of the state National Organization for Women for many years.
government should butt out of the issue -- there is no compelling state interest involved; all laws limiting this medical procedure violate substanti ...[text shortened]... tion, on the matter is beyond irresponsible -- it is immoral and, in my view, unconstitutional
Originally posted by generalissimoGood point there. The Beyser foundation is now accepting donations from those in disgust with the good doctors murder. To be fair the foundation is also accepting money from those that dislike abortions. I will promise the money will not be used for killing doctors or babies.
yes, in order to avenge his death we should kill some more babies.
nice.
Originally posted by sh76under my standard, yes
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm too lazy to look at the case right now). Isn't that quote limited to pre-viability?
Also, the "substantial obstacle" is key. Casey allowed things like "informed consent" requirements and reasonable waiting periods. Under your standard, should all those things also be unconstitutional?
Originally posted by Melanerpesyou miss the point as so many people do
The pro-life position is based on the idea that all fetuses are fully human from the moment of conception - in which case, we're allowing a million or so human beings to be murdered every year in the US. If someone believes this, it would be immoral and irresponsible if they did NOT take the "fundamentalist Christian position".
The problem with pro-lif ...[text shortened]... , and social resources to help them manage their pregnancies and raise their children.
Originally posted by ScriabinI think this very reality, that the vast numbers of women who take the pill are only vaguely aware, that the hormones released by the pill make it impossible for the foetus to attach to the uterine wall, which means that in any given month for a sexually active women, she may be unknowingly aborting a viable foetus, is the blurring agent the makes the demarcating line between abortion and prevention all but dissapear.
The most common forms of what we generically in common parlance call contraception today, IUDs, low dose birth control pills which are the safest type of birth control pills available, act as abortifacients. It is impossible to distinguish between abortion and contraception when you define abortion as the destruction of the first joinder of the ovum and the sperm.