In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court of the United States today upheld the partial birth abortion ban. All five of the justices in the majority were Catholics. This case stands for the proposition that the Supreme Court of the United States will no longer adjudicate cases based on the Constitution or the laws of the United States. From now on the SCOTUS will decide cases based on the morality dictated by the Vatican who is now in charge of the law in the United States.This is of course very bad news for all women in the United States, all gays and lesbians in the United States, and of course, anyone else not Catholic, especially Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists.Last year when the Court struck down the death penalty for minors, conservatives throughout the country condemned the Court for considering the briefs filed by Britain, EU, and else where about how it was no longer acceptable practice in the world to execute children. With today’s Catholic majority upholding the Vatican position on abortion, we all await those same conservatives condemnation of the Court for failing again to consider U.S. law and Constitutional right of privacy when it comes to decisions between a woman and her doctor over the state of her health and life.
Peter Nuhn
Yup, conservatives love to eat their cake and keep it too. Well, they wish they could. But we ain’t a-gonna let ‘em.
We will call B.S. on them every single time their hypocrisy appears. This time it’s “it’s o.k. to kill children (by executing them) AND it’s not o.k. to kill children (by abortion)”. Yo! It’s either o.k. to kill children, or it’s not o.k. Which is it, conservatives?
And no, I haven’t violated the Law of the Excluded Middle. I didn’t leave room for the conservatives to say “Well, it’s o.k. to kill children sometimes, depending on the circumstances…” If it’s o.k. to kill children for some reason, then it’s o.k., period.
In case you’re wondering, I don’t believe it’s o.k. to kill children. Period. Ever. Under no circumstances. Never.
It seems like the Catholics only listen to the Pope and not the Bible. When I attended Catholic school, I heard a lot of papal bull(shit) that directly contradicted scripture.
That being said, it would not be difficult to undermine Catholicism if we were able to infiltrate the church and set up a secretly Atheist Pope who then comes out as an Atheist and throws out the Bible and dogma… also issuing a decree of the disassembly of the church. That way, no other new Pope could come along later and reinstate it. The Catholics have no choice but to become Atheists.
Any volunteers?
Reed
“Any volunteers?”
Sorry, I have two big strikes against me. I’m female, and I have zero interest in screwing little boys.
Bill Donahue’s response to Peter Nunh’s editorial:
HollywoodThe NoGodBlog is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, okay? And I’m not afraid to say it. …HollywoodThe NoGodBlog likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism.wow, that actually made me laugh.
On a lighter nore:
Good Friday flagellants face rabies risk
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070418/od_nm/philippines_goodfriday_rabies_dc;_ylt=As3L.S3ySxjzKfFT6YRTkUnMWM0F
I’m so depressed and pisssed. So when are women going to start storming Washington and telling these fat, old sexist pigs that they can’t tell us what to do with our bodies? What’s wrong with this frakking country? Sigh.
Comment from: Celebrant Prince
I agree totally…it(abortion) is all about killing children…
I’m glad to hear that you’re prolife…
But I’m curious…how did the bomb thrower make the leap about today’s decision being bad for gays?
I think the reason Peter thinks this is “bad for gays” is that he thinks the Supreme Court is caving in to pressure from the Vatican – and therefore will uphold anti-gay laws.
Zac,
A lighter note, you say. Yecch.
And the ‘Passion’ was a bdsm comedy. Would you believe there are economic incentives to promote this?
If these people didn’t have science available in the form of vaccines and antibiotics, their take on religion would kill a lot more of them.
Having baited phreddy intentionally, he fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
I said I believed killing children is not o.k. I DID NOT say I was anti-abortion (“pro-life”), although I am certainly pro-life in the sense that human beings have a natural right to survival. But–
A fetus is not yet a human being, therefore it cannot be a child. A fetus is more properly biologically identified as a parasitical organism. Until a fetus becomes viable, it deserves no moral standing as a human being; it cannot survive on its own outside the womb, it is no more sentient than any other simple multi-celled creature, it has no language or memory, it is not yet a human being. I fully, unconditionally support a woman’s right to refuse pregnancy at any stage before her fetus becomes viable. Once a fetus becomes viable and can live outside the womb then and only then can the question of conferring “personhood” upon the fetus be considered. Until viability the fetus is not yet a human being.
phreddy really is such. a. sucker.
“This is of course very bad news for all women in the United States, all gays and l*sbians in the United States, and of course, anyone else not Catholic, especially Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists.”
I’m pretty insulted by this. You don’t have to be a religious kook to consider partial-birth abortion horrific, or to consider a late-term fetus a ‘person.’
Just because many pro-life groups are using the religious angle doesn’t make abortion a church-state issue.
I don’t know how I feel about so called partial birth abortion. I had a hysterectomy years ago, so my opinion no longer matters. AND IT SHOULDN’T matter. That’s a decision to be made between a woman & her doctor. Period. That’s it. It’s no one else’s business. The end.
I certainly wouldn’t want someone OTHER than my doctor and I deciding on the best course of action for my heart condition. He gives me all my options. We consult. I pick one. No politicians needed, thanks.
I am in agreement with the assertion that very late term abortion is not just horrific but absolute barbarism and I support this ruling. Having said that, I still support a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy during the first trimester before the fetus has developed a nervous system or is capable of independent life. Who really needs seven, eight, or even nine months to make that decision anyway?
Peter:
Did the SCOTUS also consider legal briefs filed by the Vatican, or are you just assuming that their Catholic faith swayed their opinion? There’s a big difference there.
alex,
I think it can be a bit more complex than that. You have to leave open the possibility of a woman getting pregnant and only realizing late in the pregnancy that giving birth would kill her and her baby.
At least the ruling leaves room for medical conditions.
I’m still completely against this ruling though. This will only make anti-abortion groups more vigilant in their attempts to ban all abortions.
Prepare for more court rulings.
Late term abortions are not simple black and white decisions but this ruling allows for the procedure when the mothers life or health is in danger but otherwise I stand by my belief that this procedure is sadistic butchery. Have any of you actually researched what is done during a so called partial birth abortion? It is apalling and has no place in a civilised society. Aborting a two month old foetus and an eight month old one are not ethically equivalent no matter how you spin it.
this may cause a backlash on election day.at any rate steady improvement in medical care for pregnant women as well as improved ability to treat the unborn is changing the very nature of this debate.
Perhaps we should follow the example of Germany and the Netherlands which have very low rates of legal abortions and very high incidences of compulsory realistic sexual education and free and easy access to birth control. Among industrial nations only Australia has more legal abortions per 1,000 pregnancies than the United States does. The rate I found is 21.3 abortions per 1,000 pregnancies in the USA and 6.5 in the Netherlands and 7.6 in Germany. Australia came out on top at 22.2 and Canada and the UK in the middle at 16.4 and 15.6 respectivley.
? cannot states prohibit abortion in the 2nd and third trimester under roe v wade.
Reason: Yep.
While I do think that partial birth abortions are barbaric, I do not want to see any restrictions on a woman’s choice.
That being said, I don’t really know how many serious developmental problems aren’t discovered until late in a pregnancy.
Hell, I can think of at least one situation where infanticide of a newborn is the only ethical option.
So it’s really not as black/white as most think.
mxracer652 just to make clear i am not in favor of restricting abortion to first trimester.i would like to see a substantial and sustained reduction in abortion by improving medicine and strict enforcement of child support laws.
MX,
Would you want to see a woman’s choice restricted if she chose to drown her two day old infant? Is that any different from sucking it’s brain out two days earlier while it was still in the womb? What’s the difference?
There is a substantial rumor flying around Washington tonight to the effect that the Pope is planning on putting Scalia up for saint hood in the very near future.
Apple, to answer your question, you should have been around for the confirmation hearings of these five judges. All five were specifically nominated for justice because of their Catholic, anti-abortion views. This decision is not a surprise to anyone except for a few of the very naive who thought Kennedy would rule consistently with his last stated position on this procedure which was the law he struck down did not provide an exception for the health of the patient. This time he changed his position although this law does not provide an exception for the health of the patient, only if the life of the patient is endanger.
Good stuff…
Reagan, Leslie J. When Abortion Was A Crime: Women, Medicine and the Law in the United States, 1867-1973…
Quote,”Discounting the rights of pregnant women weakens everyone’s rights as patients. If a pregnant woman cannot reject a cesarean section for religious, political, or personal reasons-then any woman can be forced to submit to procedures deemed necessary for the fetus; any patient can be forced to comply with treatments deemed necessary by medical personnel.”
Peter:
Er… That actually doesn’t answer my question. My point was that the justices may very well have been influenced by the value system they were brought up in (the Catholic church), and that’s quite a bit different than considering amicus briefs filed by the Vatican, or considering legal precedents of the Holy See (if such a things exist; I’m ignorant about what sort of legal system they have in the Vatican).
I think it’s perfectly legitimate to have qualms about a person’s religious belief as it affects policy, but I don’t think it would be hypocritical for people who condemned the SCOTUS for considering EU briefs last year to not condemn the SCOTUS now. It would be hypocritical only if the Vatican did in fact file similar official legal briefs in an effort to sway the decision. (And this is what I don’t know. I could do the research, but eh… it’s getting late.)
I think it’s possible for the justices to act according to their Catholic views without directly being an agent of the Vatican.
Comment from: Celebrant Prince
Nice try to backpeddle…
No? What is it…a carrot?
What a classic example of one who has chosen to remain blind…but your opinion doesn’t matter…today’s ruling has upheld the law…live with it…
Don’t be too excited over this ruling phreedm. Women in America still retain the legal right to have an abortion, and rightly so, just not late term abortions.
Comment from: alexatheist
Wow…I think this is only the 2nd time we’ve agreed…