Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
South Dakota to ban abortions?; ...the perfect law.
Topic Started: Jan 23 2006, 07:56 AM (4,182 Views)
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
many case laws have been built upon it.


yes IT said the same. at the risk of being pedantic, id love to have the sources for the cases u mention....im getting the hang of reading law stuff...
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
The 89th Key
Jan 25 2006, 12:00 PM
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 12:12 PM
Quote:
 
It is fair to say that RvW and DvB have been "generously"  interpreted, and subsequent case law has been built upon them to allow for abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.


i think its fair to say, (based on his comments above) 89th key has never really read the opinion that he has been campaigning to repeal.

I haven't read it in detail, no...but the general statement behind is the same. It set a precedent to keep abortion legal and many case laws have been built upon it. Repeal RvW and the WHOLE pro-choice movement gets their legs cut from under them. It would go to the states...where it should be anyway.

Regarding catholic doctrine, I might be late to the party here...but I think (or would guess) that the catholic church encourages self-defense...which what an abortion to save the mother, would be.

Wrong. No self defense argument here. The baby is not an aggressor.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
well im slogging my way though your sources...

i liked this one...

2265: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.

but i know u think its not relevant.

anyway, i thought i understood u differently but in reading that footnote from pius 12, i see that if thats doctrine, then my catholic pregnant breast cancer patients (if i ever have any...) are up the proverbial creek.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Wrong. No self defense argument here. The baby is not an aggressor.


Hmm it's a growth that feeds off the mother, perhaps if it were unwanted it could be characterised as an aggressor. (I realise the catholic stance does not take that point of view, it was just a random thought)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 12:15 PM
well im slogging my way though your sources...

i liked this one...

2265: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.

but i know u think its not relevant.
yes, not relevant. That has to to with the defense of the social order, and the baby is not an aggressor.
Quote:
 


anyway, i thought i understood u differently but in reading that footnote from pius 12, i see that if thats doctrine, then my catholic pregnant breast cancer patients (if i ever have any...) are up the proverbial creek.

I am not understanding. What is the problem with breast cancer operation/chemo/treatment etc on a pregnant woman that an abortion alleviates before the procedure?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
in breast cancer, yes i would say its pregnancy itself which gravely affects the tumors ability to proliferate and thus endangers the mother. (even after surgery, cancer cells are assumed to be still systemically circulating, and the high hormonal levels act as a stimulus.)

treatment with chemo would gravely affect the fetus.

its a no win situation. and not uncommon.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Jan 25 2006, 12:19 PM
Quote:
 

Wrong. No self defense argument here. The baby is not an aggressor.


Hmm it's a growth that feeds off the mother, perhaps if it were unwanted it could be characterised as an aggressor. (I realise the catholic stance does not take that point of view, it was just a random thought)

So do you categorize the embryo as a growth akin to a tumor or a parasite?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 12:21 PM
in breast cancer, yes i would say its pregnancy itself which gravely affects the tumors ability to proliferate and thus endangers the mother.

treatment with chemo would gravely affect the fetus.

its a no win situation. and not uncommon.

I don't see any prohibition against chemo on pregnant women. The decision to provide chemo, even if it certainly will affect the viability of the pregnancy, is morally licit. I don't see where Pius XII or any other document says otherwise.

"Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions"
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
no, im talking about the physiological effect of pregnacy acts like a serious risk factor. and therfore abortion is advised to terminate the hormonal stimulus to the tumor.

chemotherapy is teratogenic and while it may not cause a spontaneous abortion, can lead to serious birth defects and so most oncologists would recommend not treating a first trimester pregnancy with chemo.

2 seperate issues.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

So do you categorize the embryo as a growth akin to a tumor or a parasite?


I don't know, it's an interesting question. If a mother doesn't want it, and it's feeding off her then it does seem somewhat like a tumour or parasite. I suppose the difference is that it's like a tumour or parasite that if left alone for however many months will turn into a child (an entirely different kind of parasite :D)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 12:27 PM
no, im talking about the physiological effect of pregnacy acts like a serious risk factor. and therfore abortion is advised to terminate the hormonal stimulus to the tumor.

chemotherapy is teratogenic and while it may not cause a spontaneous abortion, can lead to serious birth defects and so most oncologists would recommend not treating a first trimester pregnancy with chemo.

So for instance the chemical changes that occur with pregnancy itself increase the problem of metastasis?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
exactly. breast cancer is hormonely stimulated.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
and p.s....like i said to 89th, id love to see cases where r vs w was used a precedent to extend its original mandate.

if i can read the catechism, i can read law.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 10:23 AM
however, again, i dont mean to make this personal, its not my intent, but musicasacra made this statement in this thread and id like to know if it accuratly reflects your (or official) doctrine...

"if it came down to my life or the baby's, i would choose the baby's. i would not abort. St. Gianna Beretta Molla made the same decision.


fair enough?

IT already addressed your question, but i did want to clarify, bach.

i was responding to this question:
Quote:
 
Would you be willing to die to carry a baby to term?


so it was not asking the position of the Catholic Church -- it was a personal question. i could elaborate that i would receive all of the medical care i could to the point that medical treatment would definitely endanger the life of the unborn baby. at that point, i would personally decline or postpone treatment until it was safe. that's a personal choice. i cited St. Gianna as an example of a courageous woman, physician, and mother of three who when faced with that horrific question chose to save the life of her unborn baby. i don't remember her particular illness or at what point in her pregnancy that it occurred. medicine has, of course, made substantial advances since her time and hopefully would lessen the occasions for such decisions to be made.

and IT was correct in noting ectopic pregnancies are a different matter because the baby could never develop in the fallopian tube.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
please understand it was not my specific intention to make it a personel issue, but i was curious to learn the distinction between personel self sacrifice, which can be heroic in nature, but not for everyone,. and what doctrine demands of everyone.

anyway...be that as it may, it made for interesting posting.

im also happy that 89th key learned something new today. not that i think anyone changes their views because of posts on the forum, but at least its important that when cliches like roe vs wade get thrown around, to be familiar with the specifics and not just knee jerk arguments like "thats what the law says.."

still waiting for cases where r vs w was used to increase its mandate....i hope that also was not a knee jerk argument.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
musicasacra
Jan 25 2006, 11:49 AM
i cited St. Gianna as an example of a courageous woman, physician, and mother of three who when faced with that horrific question chose to save the life of her unborn baby.

My only real fear of death since having children has been leaving my children motherless at a young age. To me, and as the mother of three children, choosing to leave three motherless children was an immoral decision. I could never wilfully do that to my children. I don't see heroism in that - I see rigid, docrinaire stoicism.

It's funny. I view children as priceless treasures and can be easily be brought to tears by witnessing an abused, unloved or neglected child. I put so, so much more moral importance on caring for the born and breathing (and God knows, there are so many out there who need the care of people outside of their families), than obsessing over aborted zygotes that may or may not have even come to full term in the womb. I just don't get the obsession with terminating pregancies early on when there are so many lives and souls of already-born children to worry about.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 03:11 PM

im also happy that 89th key learned something new today. not that i think anyone changes their views because of posts on the forum, but at least its important that when cliches like roe vs wade get thrown around, to be familiar with the specifics and not just knee jerk arguments like "thats what the law says.."

I'm embarrassed to admit that I've learned something too. I'd never looked at Roe vs. Wade, or knew what it implied. The opinion makes a great deal more sense than what it is often claimed to be by the anti-abortion lobby. Whether the law is abused or misused or not should be a separate issue from whether it is overturned. If it is indeed being misused, surely the correct approach is to stop the misuse, rather than overturn the law.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kathyk
Jan 25 2006, 12:35 PM
musicasacra
Jan 25 2006, 11:49 AM
i cited St. Gianna as an example of a courageous woman, physician, and mother of three who when faced with that horrific question chose to save the life of her unborn baby.

My only real fear of death since having children has been leaving my children motherless at a young age. To me, and as the mother of three children, choosing to leave three motherless children was an immoral decision. I could never wilfully do that to my children. I don't see heroism in that - I see rigid, docrinaire stoicism.

It's funny. I view children as priceless treasures and can be easily be brought to tears by witnessing an abused, unloved or neglected child. I put so, so much more moral importance on caring for the born and breathing (and God knows, there are so many out there who need the care of people outside of their families), than obsessing over aborted zygotes that may or may not have even come to full term in the womb. I just don't get the obsession with terminating pregancies early on when there are so many lives and souls of already-born children to worry about.

That is exactly how I feel. Exactly. I find it so hard to imagine any mother not feeling this way.
I agree, leaving those 3 children behind is not in any way heroic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
my choice of word, heroic, was simply from a certain vantage point. it was not to say that i agreed with this characterization.

although i will admit that in treating pregnant patients with breast cancer, willing to risk their own lives to carry to term, i do see a large degree of courage. (some saw this as their only chance to have children...)

i would venture to say, best not to judge anyone in particular, because i dont think anyone can honestly predict how they would react in that situation. its highly personal and unpredictable.

having said that, i abhore any doctrinal demand to make this kind of decision. that i find incomprehensible.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 02:39 PM
and p.s....like i said to 89th, id love to see cases where r vs w was used a precedent to extend its original mandate.

if i can read the catechism, i can read law.

Bach, here's one, Planned Parenthood vs Casey.

An interesting summary of RvW: The landmark (7-2) abortion decision voided the abortion laws of nearly every state. Striking down a Texas statute that prohibited all abortions except to save the mother's life, the Supreme Court, per Blackmun, held that abortion was a constitutional right that the states could only abridge after the first six months of pregnancy. More specifically, the Court held that: (1) the Court had jurisdiction; (2) Roe's case was not moot, despite the birth of her child, because the case was "capable of repetition, yet evading review;" (3) the right to privacy includes the right to abortion; (4) since abortion is a fundamental right, state regulation must meet the "strict scrutiny" standard, which means the state must show it has a "compelling interest" in having the law; (5) the word "person" in the 14th Amendment, does not apply to the unborn; (6) the state has an important interest in both preserving the heath of a pregnant woman and in protecting fetal life; (7) the state's interest in maternal health becomes compelling at three months; (8) the state's interest in fetal life becomes compelling at viability--six months; (9) the state may not regulate abortion at all during the first trimester; (10) the state may regulate abortion during the second three months, but only for the protection of the woman's health; (11) the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life.

Doe vs Bolton: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/410/179.html

PPCM v Danforth: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/428/52.html

HvM: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/448/297.html

WvHRS: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/492/490.html

Now some of those were more directly influenced by RvW than others...but interesting readings nonetheless...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 01:38 PM
i would venture to say, best not to judge anyone in particular, because i dont think anyone can honestly predict how they would react in that situation. its highly personal and unpredictable.

having said that, i abhore any doctrinal demand to make this kind of decision. that i find incomprehensible.

Of course. It's a totally personal decision, and and so it should be. I think it should be, and not, as you say, a doctrinal demand.

actually, that sums up my feelings about abortion, period.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ok 89th, give me a little time to go through cases.

but at first glance, your first case, casey, shows how the states limit r vs w. not expand its mandate.

all u did was prove my point. ill check the others in a bit.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ok, doe vs bolton.

sad story, mum is 8 wks preggars, georgia says no.

supreme court upheld her right under r vs w.

how is this expanding the role of r vs w??

u r 0/2 89th...

did u read these opinons also??? or just paste them?
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
i must admit that im having trouble following PPCM and Danforth.

so i skipped to harris vs mcrae

the supremes with diana ross held that medicaid doesnt have to cover r vs w mandated abortions.

("But, regardless of whether the freedom of a woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy for health reasons lies at the core or the periphery of the due process liberty recognized in Wade, it simply does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices")

u r now officially 0/3.

none of the cases so far expanded r vs w beyond what it said...

must i go on reading this gobbledygook? yes i must, just to prove a point.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kathyk
Jan 25 2006, 01:35 PM
musicasacra
Jan 25 2006, 11:49 AM
i cited St. Gianna as an example of a courageous woman, physician, and mother of three who when faced with that horrific question chose to save the life of her unborn baby.

My only real fear of death since having children has been leaving my children motherless at a young age. To me, and as the mother of three children, choosing to leave three motherless children was an immoral decision. I could never wilfully do that to my children. I don't see heroism in that - I see rigid, docrinaire stoicism.

That sounds like judgmental language to me. Are you judging St. Gianna's act to save her unborn baby to be immoral, or have I misinterpreted?


Quote:
 
It's funny.  I view children as priceless treasures and can be easily be brought to tears by witnessing an abused, unloved or neglected child.  I put so, so much more moral importance on caring for the born and breathing (and God knows, there are so many out there who need the care of people outside of their families), than obsessing over aborted zygotes that may or may not have even come to full term in the womb.  I just don't get the obsession with terminating pregancies early on when there are so many lives and souls of already-born children to worry about.


And there are women who treasure the inherent value of the unborn baby they are carrying and feel naturally inclined to do anything to save the life of their baby. I appreciate your sharing of your perspective, and I want to also share mine.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply