I work with disabled children and I can tell you first hand that no parent of a child with hydrocephalus or spina bifida considers themselves "screwed". They have very happy families and their children bring alot of joy to everyone around them, including me. Why dont you ask them if they wish they had killed their child while they still could legally? Can you look one of those kids in the face and tell them that their life isnt worth living? Hilter would be proud of you. Do you have any problems in your life? well maybe your mom should have killed you too.

Personally, I have pretty much stayed away from this issue . As I see it you have those that want the right to decide when end a life . Then you have those that want the right to abolish that said right and allow all created life to flourish . I think that is a side issue to the real and current problem . If you know that you can't afford to have kids and have them anyway your not being responsible with adult decisions . Kids cost money, Anyone looking to become a parent needs to understand that there are no ways out and should weigh their options carefully . I agree with what the Chinese Government has been doing for decades with regards controlling the population . You get two kids and that's it no exceptions ! It's a hard stance to take but it has it's benefits . The whole "Roe vs. Wade" thing will rage on forever until the Supremes decide to do the right thing and make a decision on the matter and not just bandage the wound .

A friend of my sister's just died due to severe eclampsia. Her fetus was dead as well. This is an often un-anticipated emergency situation that can arise late in a pregnancy. What good would it do to outlaw an abortion (the only life-saving option) until it was too late? And isn't the Supreme Court practicing medicine without a license?

Seriously, where are the arguments for Federal vs. States rights?

I realize it's a paradox. People are selfish, the founding fathers knew this. They knew that they were selfish. However, in the ongoing spirit of the Enlightenment, they yearned endlessly for truth and justice, attempting to formulate a system that could somehow handle all sorts of opinions.

The main issues with abortion are where life begins and what rights people have about their own bodies. There are no clear delimitations on these issues and there never will be, therefor, we need to attempt to find another way of handling these differences in opinion.

Again, this is a paradox. Transcendental thought is a mere myth, an opinion of its own, but it is at least a striving towards a greater truth. The more people that add to these debates, the better. Any and all opinions are necessary, but I would hope that more would tend towards the ideals of the Enlightenment.

We have yet to firmly grasp the consequences of the United States and the republic they form under out Federal government. Perhaps the geographic basis of our statehood is what is under fire. Perhaps the era of the nation-state is quickly coming to an end.

Think wisely and good luck to us all.

If a woman who and wanted her baby and is 5 months pregnant got into a car accident and had to have an immediate c-section the health care system would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars caring for a tiny baby (which she may never have to repay even if she is uninsured) and placing it in an incubator for months if necessary. Then as a society we would spend tons of money on special education if any learning disability were to occur as a result of the premature birth.

To condone partial birth abortion, when we have the technology and the social safety net to ensure babies born at this stage can be saved IF THEY ARE WANTED is indeed equivalent to infanticide.

It's still immoral for diseased babies. If you're OK with partial birth abortion, why not just induce labor and when the baby is born club it to death? What about when a woman give birth to a full term baby that she thought she wanted but it comes out deformed - can she throw it out the hospital window. You can give these babies up to become wards of the state or to private charitable foundations.

If you've decided you don't want something or that you thought you wanted it but it's defective so now you don't want it, it doesn't give you the right to KILL it.

I agree with a prior poster that in 100 years, this will be considered an embarrasing, immoral policy.

By upholding the Federal Abortion Ban in its entirety, the Supreme Court has not only supported an abortion ban with no exception for a woman's health, it has given the green light to the anti-choice movement's plan to outlaw abortion entirely.

Yes, partial birth abortions are legal in Canada. Much like in the US, in Canada, partial birth abortions are very rare and used in extreme cases (such as infants with brain damage and severe deformities)

What about Canada? Are partial-birth abortions legal in Canada?

Dear Ivy League Grunt,

Thanks for the level-headed analysis. I think that it is important for each of us understand the others' point of view and to realize that each side DOES have compassion, we just rationalize things differently.

I think that when we decide whether we are Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, we imagine what we might do if we were a pregnant woman with an unwanted child. Our imagined choice is based upon a myriad of circumstances (education system, healthcare system, financial status, family support, etc). I belive that we should begin to imagine what it might be like to be in different (perhaps more disadvantaged) situations.

Pro-Life advocates focus on partial birth abortion because the procedure IS so horrendous and gruesome and thus it's hard to ignore their arguments. But, as others have mentioned, partial birth abortion is most often used on babies that are already severly deformed or brain dead (for instance, the baby may have a swollen head the size of a basketball and thus the child is severly brain damaged, going to die and cannot be normally delivered/extracted via the birthcanal).

What Pro-Lifers fail to mention is the facts (ALL the facts). Partial-birth abortion is a very rare procedure and does not represent the majority of abortions. Partial-birth abortion is often used when the woman's health is at risk (by the way: the clause in the ban protects a woman against death, but NOT severe & chronic health conditions as a result of carrying the child to term). At 4-5 months babies CANNOT surive outside the the womb. The youngest surviving infant was 5.75 months old at birth - a RARE case. Partial-birth abortion takes place at 4-5 months.

I wouldn't chose an abortion. I don't have to. I actually want a child. I am married, have steady income and a supportive family. I am quite lucky.

That said, I support a woman's right to choose and a doctor's right to administer the appropriate treatment.

Like most people, I don't even want to imagine Partial-Birth abortion being used as a form of contraceptive, or a last ditch effort to rid ones self of a healthy baby.

Normally I don't comment, but when partial birth abortions are done--and that is in the .05% numbers, it is removing of a foetus which is so severely malformed that it cannot survive after birth, such as anencephaly or microencephaly, both of which are conditions where the brain is severely malformed plus the skull and often the skull is not fully formed. Think about it, why should a mother, upon hearing one of these conditions exist, continue to carry it to term--then have a bad labor and birth. (These malformed foetus, do not have the musculature to "help" in their own delivery, which happens with a normal child). It may live for hours, maybe several days in continual care, and then die. Is that mother expected to see her poor child suffer its last moments in front of her and family? I don't' think so.

The truth is most abortions are committed out convenience to the mother, not because of a life threat to the mother's health. Most abortions are committed by a teenager or early 20-something. How can such a large number of young women be so unhealthy that having a baby would cause ill health to their bodies? Leftist propaganda my friends. Same goes for this partial-birth abortion issue. Most of the abortions being made were on healthy fetuses, or no-name cloaking the mother's condition in terms of "life-threatened or health-harmed" so that the doctor can proceed with the abortion. The back street doctor (it is never a well-reputed doctor) performs the murder, gets his pay, and commits the next. State sanctioned murder. This crap that there now is concern over not being able to abort a partially born fetus is simply outrageous. That all other types of abortion are remain legal still makes me sick. More babies have died from abortion than any single war or conflict in the history of the world. 100 years from now, the world will look back in awe at this crime, much like slavery, gender discrimination, and racial discrimination, and say, "how could we?"

It is a true testament to Gothamist readers that the postings on this issue are (mostly) quite civil. When I compare these comments to some on other, supposedly intellectual, blogs the contrasts are startling.

I agree that in such discussions it is unlikely that one is going to change another's mind on the issue.

However, it is important to understand the concerns on both sides of the debate.

Many Pro-choicers, in this case, are concerned not with murdering innocent life, but as Zoer mentions, compassion and acceptable options for women and families in very difficult circumstances (eg. an Anencephalic baby with a brain stem but no forebrain and thus no capacity for consciousness)

Conversely, many Pro-lifers are not out to take rights away for women or invade their privacy, but rather are concerned with protecting the rights of a baby to live, and are looking to prevent abortion being used carelessly simply as a means of birth control.

No matter where along the spectrum of opinions the law resides, there will always be severe contention.

I do believe placing the issue under the masthead of a constitutional right to privacy was merely a legal contrivance, and as such its permanence will be in jeopardy unless and until the constitution is modified to clarify the definition and scope of "life."

I don't get that poster. If they had voted against the abortion stance would "5 MEn speak FOR ME?"

Thank you Zoer, thank you for a thoughtful comment. A little more compassion for everyone involved. (Although I kinda agree with Steve that it's a bit flip to compare a vasectomy with an abortion on your earlier post). And Steve don't take it so personally, it's is hard for certain people to have laws passed by other people who will never face that situation, personally. The thing is that this is a problem that has no comparison.

Zoer,

Thanks for your comments. I do have compassion for the pregnant mother, and as I said some rare, very rare, exceptions may neccessitate reconsideration (and I am glad that post 33 sited the clause that makes exception for those circumstances--I will check the reference).

Plenty of men and women (pregnant and not pregnant) are making their voices heard. Unfortunatley, from inside the womb, we are not able to hear the children speaking for themselves. This is why I speak out for them.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, fully-birthed fetuses are being blown up on a daily basis.

Hi Choose Life...

I agree that it is a terrible procedure and terrible situation for all concerned! The reason that it is an incredibly rare procedure (and never casual) is that it is a serious operation for the woman (if it was casual she would have taken the day after pill)... the deformities are often much more than superficial ... often this procedure is necessary because of life threatening/ending deformities of internal organ's of the fetus ... no one takes this surgery lightly! It's upsetting that there is so much loving focus and attention to the fetus but angry hostile comments about the woman involved ... she is a person too, she is someone's daughter/sister and yes maybe mother... where is the compassion for a woman that has to make such a hard decision? This surgery is now illegal... even if her health is at grave risk and even if her doctor thinks this procedure is the best one for her particular situation.

I think that people should look at this issue with compassion for everyone involved ... even a pregnant woman.

JUST A REMINDER to everyone: nobody's gonna change anyone's mind here. It's like talking to brick walls--and that goes for both sides.

I suggest everyone go and rent/buy "That's My Bush" Episode 1: "An Aborted Dinner Date"

Zoer, you are a PERFECT example of why our country is so screwed up! To equate a vasectomy with an abortion is like comparing a bird to a cedar tree. Hint: Study the cedar tree. You (and those like you) probably won't get it!

Post 29 - RIGHT ON!!! The HUMANE Pro-Choice, AS IT SHOULD BE!!!

18 U. S. C. §1531(a)

"...This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."