• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Nebraska is back in the news

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Legal battle looms over Nebraska abortion restrictions

By Mira Oberman (AFP) – 3 days ago

CHICAGO — A legal battle loomed Wednesday over new abortion restrictions enacted in Nebraska to target one of the few doctors in the United States who provides controversial late-term abortions.

The laws prohibit abortions performed after 20 weeks except when the woman is at risk of death or serious physical impairment and require doctors to screen their patients for a host of potential risk factors.

"We think it proposes a unique question to the court that has not been asked before and that is whether a state has an interest in protecting an unborn child who is capable of feeling pain," said Mary Spaulding Balch, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life.

In the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not restrict access to abortions prior to fetal viability -- which is generally seen to be somewhere around 24 weeks -- or when the pregnancy threatens the woman's health.

While the courts have allowed doctors to consider a woman's mental health, the Nebraska law allows abortions after 20 weeks gestation only in cases when the woman is at risk of death or serious physical impairment. It does not include exceptions for rape or incest.

Balch said she hoped that new evidence showing that fetuses are capable of experiencing pain as early as 20 weeks would convince the Supreme Court to uphold the law.

"We have good reason to believe that we would have five (of the nine) justices of the current court who would give serious consideration to what Nebraska has done," Balch said in a telephone interview.

The court has been very clear in rejecting attempts by the state to set a gestational age rather than letting a doctor determine if the fetus is viable, said Nancy Northup, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

"It's really important that this not be a vehicle to erode the constitutional law and not be a vehicle to block women who are in difficult circumstances from being able to make decisions with their doctors," Northup said.

While a doctor would still be legally allowed to perform abortions in cases where the woman's health was threatened, Nebraska's new law creates a legal minefield by requiring extensive screening for potential complications, Northup said.

"It's pretty impossible for doctors to comply with it, and it's going to be a trap for them," she told AFP.

Dr. LeRoy Carhart began performing abortions after 24 weeks of gestation in his Bellevue, Nebraska clinic after the nation's most high-profile provider of late-term abortions was shot to death in the foyer of his Kansas church last year.

Speaker of the Legislature Mike Flood has said he proposed the abortion restrictions to prevent Carhart from performing the controversial procedures.

Carhart, who has previously fought abortion restrictions all the way up to the Supreme Court, said the legislation "strengthens" his commitment to fighting for women's reproductive health and rights.

"I am extremely saddened that my state has passed two laws that seriously jeopardize women's health under the awful pretense of protecting them," he said in a statement.

"These laws will make it harder for patients to get an abortion when they really need them, when they are under the most desperate of circumstances and even when they are clearly medically, morally and religiously justified."

The legislation was signed into law Tuesday and goes into effect in October.

Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
The law might make a woman carry a baby that she doesn't want, but my question still is who's going to take on the responsibility of making sure that unwanted baby isn't born into a life of hell here on earth?
 

Steve

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
The law might make a woman carry a baby that she doesn't want, but my question still is who's going to take on the responsibility of making sure that unwanted baby isn't born into a life of hell here on earth?

I could ask what is hell?

but instead I would like to know why 20 weeks is not enough time to decide to kill your child?

The laws prohibit abortions performed after 20 weeks except when the woman is at risk of death or serious physical impairment

140 days... twenty weeks... or over 4 and a half months.. over half way through the pregnancy..

sure it is a tough decision.. and I am totally against abortion... but why is that not enough time to decide ?
 

Steve

Well-known member
but my question still is who's going to take on the responsibility of making sure that unwanted baby isn't born into a life of hell here on earth?

ok... I have to ask... what is your definition of hell on earth?
 

burnt

Well-known member
Oh, I have to ask - how is killing a little baby to save it from a potentially unhappy life acceptable to you, CA?
 

VanC

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
The law might make a woman carry a baby that she doesn't want, but my question still is who's going to take on the responsibility of making sure that unwanted baby isn't born into a life of hell here on earth?

That's easy. We assemble a panel of "life of hell here on earth" experts. Doctors, lawyers, psychologists, maybe a couple of touchy-feely talk show hosts like Oprah and Dr. Phil. Their first priority would be to establish standards for what constitutes a "life of hell here on earth." Once that's done, they start with the millions that have already been born and are already living a "life of hell here on earth". After all, why should only unborn children get all the breaks? Since it would be inhumane to force them to continue living a "life of hell here on earth", they would be rounded up and humanely killed. No doubt their last words will be "thank you."

Now it gets a little trickier. We all know that there are so-called "unwanted children" that go on to lead happy, productive lives. We also know that children born into happy, stable homes sometimes end up living a "life of hell here on earth". Since we have no idea how an unborn child will turn out, every child will be carried to term. Every child will be then be revisited at a later date. It could be at the age of two, five, ten, whatever. If the panel of experts decides that the child is now living a "life of hell here on earth" then they will be promptly put out of their misery.

This whole thing might take a few years, but eventually everyone left alive will be happy.......or else. And just think!! No more abortion debates!! One side gets what they want: every pregnancy carried to term. The other side gets what they want: the right to kill "unwanted children". To steal a line from an old song: "what a wonderful world it will be".
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
VanC said:
CattleArmy said:
The law might make a woman carry a baby that she doesn't want, but my question still is who's going to take on the responsibility of making sure that unwanted baby isn't born into a life of hell here on earth?

That's easy. We assemble a panel of "life of hell here on earth" experts. Doctors, lawyers, psychologists, maybe a couple of touchy-feely talk show hosts like Oprah and Dr. Phil. Their first priority would be to establish standards for what constitutes a "life of hell here on earth." Once that's done, they start with the millions that have already been born and are already living a "life of hell here on earth". After all, why should only unborn children get all the breaks? Since it would be inhumane to force them to continue living a "life of hell here on earth", they would be rounded up and humanely killed. No doubt their last words will be "thank you."

Now it gets a little trickier. We all know that there are so-called "unwanted children" that go on to lead happy, productive lives. We also know that children born into happy, stable homes sometimes end up living a "life of hell here on earth". Since we have no idea how an unborn child will turn out, every child will be carried to term. Every child will be then be revisited at a later date. It could be at the age of two, five, ten, whatever. If the panel of experts decides that the child is now living a "life of hell here on earth" then they will be promptly put out of their misery.

This whole thing might take a few years, but eventually everyone left alive will be happy.......or else. And just think!! No more abortion debates!! One side gets what they want: every pregnancy carried to term. The other side gets what they want: the right to kill "unwanted children". To steal a line from an old song: "what a wonderful world it will be".

Such an idea has already been started.


May 24, 2009
Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
There's a waiting list a mile long of people who want to adopt a newborn.

I agree with you Sandhusker, but here lies the problem you can't make a mother give up her child until the state has declared her unfit and who knows by that time what the child has endured.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Steve said:
but my question still is who's going to take on the responsibility of making sure that unwanted baby isn't born into a life of hell here on earth?

ok... I have to ask... what is your definition of hell on earth?

Ever seen a child badly neglected?
Ever encounter a child that is being beaten at home?
Ever work with children and realize the only meal they are getting is the noon one while away from home?
Ever see a child with cigarette burns on their body inflicted by a parent?

That to me with the child being so innocent is darn close if not hell on earth.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
burnt said:
Oh, I have to ask - how is killing a little baby to save it from a potentially unhappy life acceptable to you, CA?

I didn't say it was acceptable to me I asked the question.

My question now would be they are saying a fetus can feel pain is the pain of an abortion worse or the pain of being unwanted?
 

burnt

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
burnt said:
Oh, I have to ask - how is killing a little baby to save it from a potentially unhappy life acceptable to you, CA?

I didn't say it was acceptable to me I asked the question.

My question now would be they are saying a fetus can feel pain is the pain of an abortion worse or the pain of being unwanted?

As ugly as the pain of being unwanted must be, I cannot see how you can equate it with murder or use it to justify the act of murder.
 

burnt

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
burnt said:
Oh, I have to ask - how is killing a little baby to save it from a potentially unhappy life acceptable to you, CA?

I didn't say it was acceptable to me I asked the question.

My question now would be they are saying a fetus can feel pain is the pain of an abortion worse or the pain of being unwanted?

Would you say that the abortion doctor, DR. George Tiller, was terminated in the 203rd trimester and that the termination was justifiable because it saved a lot of babies from going through hellish pain and then dying?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Once that's done, they start with the millions that have already been born and are already living a "life of hell here on earth". After all, why should only unborn children get all the breaks? Since it would be inhumane to force them to continue living a "life of hell here on earth", they would be rounded up and humanely killed. No doubt their last words will be "thank you."

what if we had a really crappy childhood by the panels standards but turned our life around... would we be exempt... ???


since this would effect me directly... the next question is ... do we have to do in the children of those who should have been aborted, but for the grace of GOD weren't.. ?

the reason I ask is that over the years when a person lays out the reasons a child should be aborted they often describe my childhood...

so I guess is the real question can you look at me now and say with all honesty that I should have never been born?

have a great Sunday... I am going to church to pray for all the children...
 

Steve

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
Steve said:
but my question still is who's going to take on the responsibility of making sure that unwanted baby isn't born into a life of hell here on earth?

ok... I have to ask... what is your definition of hell on earth?

Ever seen a child badly neglected?
Ever encounter a child that is being beaten at home?
Ever work with children and realize the only meal they are getting is the noon one while away from home?

Ever see a child with cigarette burns on their body inflicted by a parent?

That to me with the child being so innocent is darn close if not hell on earth.

except for the cigarette burns... yes.
 

Steve

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
burnt said:
Oh, I have to ask - how is killing a little baby to save it from a potentially unhappy life acceptable to you, CA?

I didn't say it was acceptable to me I asked the question.

My question now would be they are saying a fetus can feel pain is the pain of an abortion worse or the pain of being unwanted?

unwanted as a child isn't so bad if later someone wants you...
 

Larrry

Well-known member
CA seems to be saying that if society can not guarantee that a baby will grow up in a happy life all the time then we must kill them for their own good. That being the case can we guarantee that any baby born will always grow up happy. So do we kill all babies?
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Larrry said:
CA seems to be saying that if society can not guarantee that a baby will grow up in a happy life all the time then we must kill them for their own good. That being the case can we guarantee that any baby born will always grow up happy. So do we kill all babies?

No Larrry you seem to be putting your own spin to fit your own agenda of the original question I asked.


If you are for making a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant be pregnant then why not support making the man marry the woman?

Why does the woman get all the you have tos?
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Steve said:
Once that's done, they start with the millions that have already been born and are already living a "life of hell here on earth". After all, why should only unborn children get all the breaks? Since it would be inhumane to force them to continue living a "life of hell here on earth", they would be rounded up and humanely killed. No doubt their last words will be "thank you."

what if we had a really crappy childhood by the panels standards but turned our life around... would we be exempt... ???


since this would effect me directly... the next question is ... do we have to do in the children of those who should have been aborted, but for the grace of GOD weren't.. ?

the reason I ask is that over the years when a person lays out the reasons a child should be aborted they often describe my childhood...

so I guess is the real question can you look at me now and say with all honesty that I should have never been born?

have a great Sunday... I am going to church to pray for all the children...

I respect your ideas on this Steve and you've given me a new perspective on it. Have a great Sunday!
 
Top