Why Do People Say "The Supreme Court Is Wrong?" when it doesn't rule their way?

[SilentScope001]

But this ban allows for people to dismember the fetus. All Partial-Birth abortion does is take the fetus whole-and-soul out and let it starve to death.

 

So cutting off the heads and feet of the fetus and pulling it out...is okay, but just taking the child out intact is not? Somehow, if I was a fetus, I would rather not be cut up into itty bitty pieces. Law is becoming more and more arbitrary.

 

I wasn't really worried about the ruling more about the screaming of the "Supreme Court is Wrong!" whenever the Supreme Court actually say something.

[shamelessposer]

Does everyone know what the Supreme Court said specifically about the partial-birth abortion ban? If not, I'll find it and post here and render a medical opinion along with it. The ruling was very specific and was not so much about being 'sexist' as it was about preventing infanticide.

 

Actually, you'd be wrong there. As stated above, dismembering the fetus is considered A-OK, but a standard partial birth abortion isn't allowed. There are rare circumstances (hydroencephaly, off the top of my head) where a partial birth abortion is the only method with a good chance of maintaining viability of the woman's uterus for later births. In a document written by one of the justices it's actually stated outright that partial birth abortions were banned to prevent emotional harm from coming to the woman who undergoes the procedure, hence my statement about it being sexist rather than a medical decision.

[Jae Onasi]

There are rare circumstances (hydroencephaly, off the top of my head) where a partial birth abortion is the only method with a good chance of maintaining viability of the woman's uterus for later births.

 

This is not correct. PBA is never the _only_ option. It also refers to an abortion done when the baby is partly born, i.e. the head is already out. That has no effect on uterine viability, since the baby is killed after his/her head has already gone through the cervix and out of the uterus entirely, anyway.

 

There are quite a number of women who've given birth to hydrocephalic babies vaginally and did not have uterine damage (actually, technically it would be cervical damage). The fontanelles in the baby's skull are not closed in hydrocephalic babies any more than normocephalic babies (barring unusual exceptions), and thus their heads can also mold to fit through the cervix and birth canal just like a 'normal' baby, unless the hydrocephalus is extreme.

If there is concern about whether or not the head is too big to pass through the dilated cervix, then a c-section becomes an option. PBA is not a viable option if the head won't go through the cervix in the first place, and certainly is not an option for a mother who doesn't believe in aborting. In fact, if there is so much concern about head size that abortion is being considered as an option, then there is a significant enough potential for complications (torn and/or hemorrhaging cervix, failure to progress, to name just a couple) that may render a c-section actually safer in the long run. A controlled cesarean incision bleeds much less than a large cervical tear and thus has less risk of hemorrhage, for instance.

[Web Rider]

Not really, they have a right to their opinion, so if they disagree with the high courts, they're welcome to appeal, or just voice their opinion in a sane, peaceful way. I mean, I don't know what else to say on the topic.

 

They're not being hypocritical on the subject, since they likly held that opinion before the vote was cast, and even the supreme court is basically decided by opinion.

 

And that IS the base idea behind a democracy, to have the country support your POV. of course your POV gets watered down quite a bit as you get more people on your side and such until you have the political power.

 

I don't really want to get into the PBA ban/limit/restriction. I've debated it to death already in far too many places.

[Achilles]

C-sections would accomplish the same thing and in that case theoretically might be safer for the woman than a PBA. I don't know of any conditions that would damage a woman's uterus with a standard birth and would make a PBA safer than a c-section, but I don't have Gabbe's Obstetrics memorized, either.

Huh? A minimally invasive, outpatient procedure is less safe than an operation which exposes the gut and requires at least 3 days of hospitalization afterwards? A late-trimester abortion puts the mother at risk for psychological trauma but laying in a hospital bed for three days in pain while contemplating why your stomach hurts so bad and you can't move or eat solid food is humane? Interesting.

 

Tell me again how this isn't about the christian agenda.