April 27, 2007

Living, Life and Death

Viability, that is the defining word that determines the law on abortion. It has becomes unclear and further clouded when viability is extended through complicated medical procedures. We all know that when there is conception, the zygote becomes a living entity. Even the egg and sperm are considered living. After time, they both die if not becoming the zygote. For the Supreme Court purpose in the case Gonzales v.Carhart, the fetus is called the living fetus.

I have questions about being able to make any law regarding abortion, when we have a medical definition about when life ends, but not when life begins. It is agreed when one is born, that life has begun. Living does not mean there is life. We can be kept living by artificial means, when we are declared dead.If that person is known to be a transplant donor, they may be kept living until the organs and skin are harvested. Sometime the body will keep living, when we are clinically dead. Not everyone has agreed to this, but the law has left that to a family member or a designated proxy to decide in that case.

In this decision, Justice Kennedy discusses with preciseness, the details of abortion procedures and later makes judgment on which is the worst or most inhuman procedure.

We next determine whether the Act imposes an undue burden, as a facial matter, because its restrictions on second-trimester abortions are too broad. A review of the statutory text discloses the limits of its reach. The Act prohibits intact D&E; and, notwithstanding respondents’ arguments, it does not prohibit the D&E procedure in which the fetus is removed in parts.

The Act prohibits a doctor from intentionally performing an intact D&E. The dual prohibitions of the Act, both of which are necessary for criminal liability, correspond with the steps generally undertaken during this type of procedure. First, a doctor delivers the fetus until its head lodges in the cervix, which is usually past the anatomical landmark for a breech presentation. See 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). Second, the doctor proceeds to pierce the fetal skull with scissors or crush it with forceps. This step satisfies the overt-act requirement because it kills the fetus and is distinct from delivery. See §1531(b)(1)(B). The Act’s intentrequirements, however, limit its reach to those physicians who carry out the intact D&E after intending to undertake both steps at the outset.

The Act excludes most D&Es in which the fetus is removed in pieces, not intact. If the doctor intends to remove the fetus in parts from the outset, the doctor will not have the requisite intent to incur criminal liability. A doctor performing a standard D&E procedure can often “tak[e] about 10–15 ‘passes’ through the uterus to remove the entire fetus.” Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 962. Removing the fetus in this manner does not violate the Act because the doctor will not have delivered the living fetus to one of the anatomical landmarks or committed an additional overt act that kills the fetus after partial delivery. §1531(b)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).

If it is painful an regrettable, would it really make a difference how it happened? wouldn't the regret be in not having the child rather than how their pregnancy was terminated. If a doctor describe both procedures to me, I would be more squeamish about the D&E without meeting the anatomical landmark. He infers that we will get a crazy woman if she does this and I ask, wouldn't she be crazy if she had to deal with an unwanted child? Motherhood is not instinctive in humans or other primates, we learn the behavior. If it was instinctive, every woman would raise and feel the same about their children. What kind of legal argument is this?

Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision. Casey, supra, at 852–853 (opinion of the Court). While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 05–380, pp. 22–24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. See ibid.

In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used, confining themselves to the required statement of risks the procedure entails. From one standpoint this ought not to be surprising. Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety preceding invasive medical procedures become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue. See, e.g.,Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 466, n. 22 (“Most of [the plaintiffs’] experts acknowledged that they do not describe to their patients what [the D&E and intact D&E] procedures entail in clear and precise terms”); see also id., at 479.

It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State. Casey, supra, at 873 (plurality opinion) (“States are free to enact laws to provide a reasonable framework for a woman to make a decision that has such profound and lasting meaning”). The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.

It is a reasonable inference that a necessary effect of the regulation and the knowledge it conveys will be to encourage some women to carry the infant to full term, thus reducing the absolute number of late-term abortions. The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand. The State’s interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion.

It is objected that the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than the intact D&E, so that the legislation accomplishes little. What we have already said, however, shows ample justification for the regulation. Partial-birth abortion, as defined by the Act, differs from a standard D&E because the former occurs when the fetus is partially outside the mother to the point of one of the Act’s anatomical landmarks. It was reasonable for Congress to think that partial-birth abortion, more than standard D&E, “undermines the public’s perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world.” Congressional Findings (14)(K), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769. There would be a flaw in this Court’s logic, and an irony in its jurisprudence, were we first to conclude a ban on both D&E and intact D&E was overbroad and then to say it is irrational to ban only intact D&E because that does not proscribe both procedures. In sum, we reject the contention that the congressional purpose of the Act was “to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.” 505 U. S., at 878 (plurality opinion).

Basically he saying its bad medicine.

As respondents have noted, and the District Courts recognized, some recitations in the Act are factually incorrect. See Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 482, 488–491. Whether or not accurate at the time, some of the important findings have been superseded. Two examples suffice. Congress determined no medical schools provide instruction on the prohibited procedure. Congressional Findings (14)(B), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769. The testimony in the District Courts, however, demonstrated intact D&E is taught at medical schools. Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 490; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1029. Congress also found there existed a medical consensus that the prohibited procedure is never medically necessary. Congressional Findings (1), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 767. The evidence presented in the District Courts contradicts that conclusion. See, e.g., Carhart, supra, at 1012–1015; Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 488–489; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 1025–1026. Uncritical deference to Congress’ factual findings in these cases is inappropriate.
Now for the decision.

Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. For these reasons the judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are reversed.

It is so ordered.

Read the entire opinion

Have I missed something? The way I see it the law can't be rescinded, because there is no medical consensus that it would ever save the mothers life and that it is OK to do a D&E if there if there is no partial delivery.

April 26, 2007

Gliese 581

The NASA Image of the Day at top of this blog barely shows a picture of a star that has a planet that may have water and an atmosphere. It is one and a half times the size of the earth. Click on the picture for more details. After today find it here. It revolves around it sun every 14 days. I wonder if it has life on the planet; does life moves 26 times faster, than on earth?

April 21, 2007

The longest twenty seconds in my life.

I am back to work. Realized a few days before surgery that I didn't have as much sick time as I thought; so since the surgery went well, I went back to work a few weeks earlier. I was and am still a little sore, but I don't have to do any heavy lifting except to bring my big cup of coffee back to my desk. Anyways, a couple of weeks ago I received an email notifying me of an upcoming job fair with an utility company. I went this morning and was able to get three on the spot interviews. During one of the interviews, I got asked a question and at the moment I started to answer, I lost my train of thought. I even forgot the question. SCARY !!!! I still continued to talk trying to remember what the question was. I felt I couldn't dare ask him to repeat it. Fortunately, I did recover my memory and directed my conversation into answering the question. I hope the interviewer didn't notice. I hope it didn't take me any longer than twenty seconds to answer.
Since these are my first interviews in a few years, I have no idea if I was sucessful.

April 20, 2007

This Day

This morning I didn't realized that this day had been declared a Day of Mourning for the Virginia Tech victims until I recieved an e-mail at work. My mood changed from anger to sorrow when I read of Professor Liviu Librescu's funeral. This brought into reality, all of the families grief and pain.

Of course I'm not blaming the victims, but...

Since the catstrophe of Katrina, I guess it's cool to babble about the victims of the tragedy at Virginia Tech. The critiques on the blogosphere could not wait to blame the victims. To use them to put forth their political disdain for American culture.

April 19, 2007

When did "nigger" get in the dictionary?

When I was young, when you were called that, we would say "that's not a word." We never found the word in any of our dictionaries, but there may have been some dictionary that had defined the word. In fifty years, nigger has become a word. As my Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines; it is a noun, offensive, a black person. I was surprised and found other derogatory terms for ethnic groups; and their definitions begin noun, offensive, whatever group. Is offensive the strongest word the editors could think of?

I guess that being in the dictionary now, caused the software of a Chinese furniture manufacturer to
translate a color brown from Chinese to "nigger brown" in English. A glitch we're told.

H/T Black Looks

These are thoughts that I wish I could better express

Man does not become human until he develops culture.

There would not be an individual unless there is a society, otherwise the person would be either predator or prey in the natural world.

A solitary man has no natural rights.

Is there such a thing as natural rights?

Many people believe man has evolved into angels, even though they do not believe in evolution.

April 11, 2007

Is it just me

It is not enough that the legal system has worked for the Duke Lacrosse players. This is a vile response to the dropping of all charges against them.

April 03, 2007

Putting more than dreams in a trash can

That should have been the title of my last post. I imagine some reading may think that my personality had gotten in the way of my being hired. I wish it were the case, I have not had any interviews. The resume goes in these databases and I have no idea where it goes from there. A few times, I have been in contact with the human resource person, but could get no further.

Speaking of my personality, has it been responsible for my being alone all these years, because the luster of youth has worn off? After a bad marriage, I said I wouldn’t settle. A meaningless statement; never had the choice to make again. I am at a place where I want to be rescued. I think I can adjust my personality for that. It seems like I have been on my own since I was born; I need shelter.

April 01, 2007

The seriousness of planning for your old age

I am finding that I am constantly thinking of ways to cut back expenses. So many things, I got a late start in life. I am now beginning to realize how I had been fooling my self, thinking that someone would hire me at my age. After finally getting a degree, I had built up this elaborate plan on how many years I would have to work this new job, and what I would have to make. I would be able to get out of debt, including school debt, and hopefully I would have a cushion if Social Security failed or if I had to go back on dialysis. I do have a pension, but I have not worked enough years for that to totally support me. Prescription cost are already a given.

It is not that I have given up entirely on finding a job; it is that I have to be realistic and time is running out. I am tired now after work, I don’t know if it is from boredom or what. Not carrying 20lbs of kidneys may help my stamina when I go back. I would retire now if I could. I am thinking, what I can cut back, not much. I don’t live with a lot of luxury, except DSL.

When I was young I never thought about this, when I was middle age, I thought there were possibilities. I was passing civil service exams, high on the list, surely I would get hired. I got a little older and began to see energy prices skyrocket. For awhile I was in sticker shock Cost were out running my raises. So here I am now becoming fearful, not that I will starve, but the way I will have to live will preclude me from doing anything I wanted. Being stuck with having to find free stuff to do and hope it suits me. I also have to hope that I won’t have another catastrophic illness.