Are there any pro-choice Americans on this site that do share the opinion of the Supreme Court ruling? Is there anyone who, though you may be in favor of abortion, agree that the late-term practice of partially delivering a baby, puncturing its skull with scissors, and extracting the brain is barbaric and horrifying? I myself am pro-life, but I am interested in dialogue with others who don't share my views. Thank you.

sarahh, I'm interested in a dialogue as well... I do not share the opinion of 5 of the members of the Supreme Court for many reasons. I am not 'in favor of abortion.' I am in favor of a woman and her doctor being able to make the best decision in order to safeguard her health. Politicians and judges should not decide.

I volunteer with groups who work to make abortion rare, by advocating for real sex education and contraception access.

Sarah, thanks for being willing to discuss without being excessively emotional--I'm amazed at the number of people who cannot share opposing views without spewing alot of venom...

I also volunteer with a group that works to make abortion more rare through pregnancy counseling, sex education and adoption information and assistance.

I delivered my first child over 2 months early by emergency Cesarean section in one of those instances of the mother's health being in serious danger. My blood pressure spiked to a dangerous level, so high that, had I continued to carry my baby, I would have begun to seize and possibly experience a stroke. After 3 days of a painful magnesium sulfate IV and several rounds of steroids, my doctor and I decided that the pain was too severe and my pressure was too high; at that point, concern over my health had surpassed the worry over the health of my baby being delivered early, so my daughter was delivered at 30 weeks. If ever there was a case for the "health of the woman", don't you think this was one?

You mentioned that politicians and judges should not decide, but this is precisely what politicians and judges do--they decide. Politicians decide what the law should say, and judges decide if and when a law has been broken. Politicians are elected officials for the safeguard of ensuring that the will of their constituents is carried out. It is importatnt to note that the Supreme Court did not make a new law (thank goodness) in this instance--they simply upheld an existing ban on the practice of partial birth abortions. Our elected officials are constantly exercising the democratic process of making laws, determining right and wrong. For instance, we have an entire vein of the law devoted to animal cruelty. Men and women pay fines and do jail time for things like dog fighting and neglect. For goodness sake, there's an entire series on TV called Animal Precinct for the purpose of determininng whether an individual's behavior was right or wrong. A civilized society must have laws enunciating right an wrong actions. That is where this ban comes into play. We, through our laws, are stating that the practice of partial-birth abortions (or the more sanitized "late-term abortion") has no place in a civilized society. This is a procedure where a baby is forcibly breeched in the birth canal, delivered to his shoulders, has his head punctured at the base of the brain, and the contents of the head vacuumed out for the purpose of ending his life; a procedure where, according to much medical testimony in courts of law, the baby does experience excrutiating pain. Now, I don't want to be accused of using scare tactics or shock language to manipulate the discussion--there's no clean way of describing what happens in a partial-birth abortion. It is interesting that were the baby to be delivered a few more inches, he would annonunce his arrival by crying, flailing his arms and legs, and having mucus sucked out of his nose and mouth by doctors. If that doctor, or even the mother for that matter, were to, at that point, take the baby off the table, use a pair of scissors to puncture the baby in the back of the head and suck out the brain, any jury would find him or her guilty of murder. There is an appalling double standard that the location of one body part separates the same action from being an atrocity on one hand and a simplistic "right to a choice" on the other hand. Does the entire practice not strike you, on some deep level, as an action that has no place in a civilized society? This is what judges, lawmakers, and indeed a large portion of society are saying--partial-birth abortions really cannot be characterized as anything short of infanticide, and we have to take a hard look at why some are so capable of deeming thoroughly barbaric behavior as acceptable.

I appreciate your coming to the table sarahh... but I have to say your point, though taken, falls short. Anyone making decisions about a life-threatening medical decision should be the person experiencing the threat and his or her educated, licensed medical professional. None of these "justices" are medical professionals, on either side of this issue. It should not be their decision, one way or the other. The only law that should be in effect is that any pregnancy termination come after thoughtful consideration, and be left up to a woman, her doctor and her God. There is a law like this in the state of Nevada already.

I would like to see the abortion plank dropped from all political platforms, and women once again respected for their god-given intelligence and free will. Who knows, then we may actually have some real meaningful leadership in this country instead of division and distraction whilst the US treasury is emptied by Bush's friends and corporate allies.

If women need to have a late-term abortion, they've made the decision not on a whim, but out of absolute necessity, considering the risks involved. And I've never known a woman, including myself, who has had an abortion lightly.

The Supreme Court decision by Kennedy says that YOU need protection by men/the government against your own evil flighty self. Totally archaic, and I would never excuse the use of such assumptions regarding women, no matter the cause. Ginsburg was right in her dissenting opinion. Shocking that in 2007, women would still be thought of as mindless babymakers to fill the societal tax and labour rolls.

FYI, my mother had to pay the mafia in South Philly for an abortion before it was legal. Oh, the pain that produced--of her being judged as incapable of making a decision on whether or not to bring yet another human being (we're nearly at 7 billion now, up from just 2 billion shortly after 1900--that is scary) into the world, judged as a "slut", etc. Due to the mistrust and total disregard for women, she had to pay criminals whose idea of a fun Sunday was the massacre of a whole family on a block close to ours in Philly. More pain.

And even on top of that, I myself am a cancer survivor of 6+ years. I left the Catholic Church and was finally able to heal from all the abuse and hatred against women in that very political, money-driven organization. I ended up buying a plane ticket for treatment offshore, being already very familiar with my lack of choices for any medical treatments in the States. Luckily, I have an EU passport and I can really imagine the day when I leave the US for good and live in a more forward-thinking society instead of this "me me me" male and fetus-centric nuthouse.

I'd say let's focus more on quality of life than just forcing more mouths to feed out of women in pain when there are already 3 billion people on earth living in poverty. We've got plenty to do before adding more people, especially with such painful circumstances. Restrictions won't lessen the pain, they only serve to increase it.

On the environmental side, the US alone is responsible for 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, so an American baby should not be brought into breathing "just because it's growing" in someone's body. We have a real environmental problem here, and far from even being pro-choice, I am all for a one-child limit on couples in the US.

Humans are NOT precious, especially knowing what some of us are paid to try and survive here--try working for less than $3 an hour plus tips as a waitress, or visit Calcutta or some places in Africa, where life is very expendable. I have been there, and life is far different in the other corners of this world--it's not all safe white suburbia where forcing someone to bear a child they don't want is in vogue or "moral".

Hey, we all die. Let's focus on living without so much pain.

Thank you for commenting Sarahh, I'm sure your delivery situation was very traumatic. This clearly was a child that you much wanted and I am assuming survived after a long stay in a neonatal unit. I certainly hope for your sake that is true.

Taking that same scenario, Let us assume potential mother such as yourselv finds her self in the same position. She is carring a very much wanted child, but she too develops extremely High Blood pressue and the threat of a life ending seizue. But is this case, has discovered, perhaps through Amniocentesis, or ultrasound, that her 'child' is 'ancephalic' which means not heaving a brain or even much of a head. Or this child may be carry the gene for Tay-Sacs disease, which will result in the death of this child within a few short years of birth. Her desire to put herself through the experience of wathching a wanted child born dead, die with-in an hour of birth, or die with-in two years of birth. All horrible choices, and all a threat to her life and this immediate time. Her choice is too have the D&X procedure (medically safeist way to go) or to be forced to undergo a C-serction (a much more risky procedure for a sick pregnant women) Induced labor is not an option because of blood pressure concerns that might cause the fatal stroke.

The C-section option could deliver a live ancephalic baby who will die within the hour, or a Tay sacs Child who will die with two years, AND this option will cost this mother and her familiy upwards of $10,000 - $100,000 for care and treatment when the end result will still be a dead child and a whole lot of hurt.

Incidently, there is no credible evidence that a fetus experiences any paid during D&X nor any other type of abortion. It is simply implauseable as the woman is anesthetized and so is the fetus by virtue of being in utero, not to mention that the fetus nervous system though able to react reflexively to stimuli is not well enough developed to 'feel pain' Your should also know that the brain itself, when touched direct, by a surgical instrument, as is done in several types of invasive surgery, is incapable of feeling pain, and often times, those surgical patients are awake while the surgery is being performd. Anything you hear to the contrary is nonsence. Why do you think they discourage pregnant women in labor from taking heavy drugs.

So, from my pro-choic perspective, and considerable experience some of these medical area, there are just too many variables that can occur when dealing with medical issues relating to mother and child for the Court or the Congress to try to make a hard and fast rule to eliminate a procedure about which they are completely unqualified to judge.
I also don't see this issue as one in which any religious denomination should be allowed to be involved, on any level

Laura, I'm not sure what you mean by emphatically stating that "humans are NOT precious"--surely that's not a viewpoint you espouse. If it is, I'm hard pressed to understand why, if humans indeed are not precious, we should have any sympathy at all for any of the human conditions you mentioned--the family massacred by the Mafia, the children in Calcutta, the waitress working for pennies (which incidentally I've done, as have many), or yourself and your own victory over cancer. The preciousness and intrinsic value of human life is what merits compassion for all, including the unborn. Ultimately, it seems as though you and I have fundamentally different presuppositions about life and rights to life, which makes common ground discussions difficult. My original "jumping off" point was more a question of one's opinion of the particulars of partial-birth abortions, not the entire abortion issue itself. Without common presuppositions, i.e. life beginning at conception and a basic right to life as stated in the Constitution, abortion is almost always a stalemate of a discussion.

To address your point that none of the justices is medical professionals, they are not required to themselves be professionals in the field of every case brought before them. Otherwise, only medical doctors could judge cases revolving around healthcare, only clergymen could judge cases revolving around the church, only educators could judge cases of education, etc. Judges listen to others who are professionals in these fields testify on both sides of the issue and make decisions based upon the credibility and verity of their testimony. The testimony of experts on both sides is precisely what qualifies judges to make judgements about any an every case before them.

Merg, your scenario of a mother with high blood pressure and an anencephalic baby is certainly difficult. I, in fact, walked a very dear friend of mine through a pregnancy where she carried a baby with anencephaly for 7 months. She did have to deal very personally and tragically with the decision to keep or abort her son, with full knowledge that his skull was not formed over his brain and he would die. Back to the issue of basic presuppositions, her final conclusion was that life is not ours to take, when it is an issue of a life that has committed no crime, much less a crime worthy of death. In her mind, her baby's right to not be killed (yes, even though he would most definitely die naturally) surpassed her right to not be pregnant (yes, even though the pregnancy was horribly painful). Francis was born, and did die at 45 minutes old. I tell the story just to emphasize that I, as a vehemently pro-life, anti-abortion person, am not callous or heartless, and have directly experienced several situations often quoted by people from the pro-choice perspective. Incidentally, our own daughter's delivery and NICU care totalled $35,000.00, and came right after my husband lost his job, so cost, no matter how high, will never, ever justify the taking of human life. Here again, my entire position is based on my basic assumption that an unborn child is a person with a fundamental right to life. I understand that this is not a position shared by all, but follow the anti-abortion train of thought for a moment. If one does take the stance against abortion because of the belief that it is the murder of innocent life, and murder in all other forms in society has been recognized by moral and written law to be wrong, it follows that we on the pro-life side would wish to see abortion put under this same umbrella in our country's written code of law as murder.

Finally, there is evidence from medical professionals that a fetus experiences pain. I quote: "The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies"--Steven Calvin, perinatologist, Univ. of Minnesota; "At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG)"--Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, Univ. of Toronto; "An unborn child at 20 weeks gestation is fully capable of experiencing pain...Without question, abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure."--Robert J. White, M.D., Ph.D., professor of neurosurgery, Case Western Reserve University. There are hundreds such sworn testimonies, but not that kind of room here. Furthermore, it has been noted that for maternal anesthesia to provide adequate pain protection for the unborn child, it would have to avoid metabolism by the mother's liver, enter her bloodstream, cross the placental membrane, reach the unborn child's circulatory system in sufficient concentration, and cross the child's blood/brain barrier. The dose of anesthesia necessary to pass all these points would endanger the mother. Think about the most common anesthesia administered in labor and delivery nowadays, the epidural. Speaking from personal experience, an epidural, though it works wonders on maternal labor and delivery pain, has absolutely no effect on the baby at all. All this talk about fetal pain is important to pro-life people because it further humanizes the fetus, and in our view, brings that life onto a common platform of value with the rest of humanity.

Please forgive the length and wordiness of this post. Though I'm sure there are countless points on which most of you disagree with me, I know the issue is as important and meaningful to you as it is to me.