"Partial Birth' Abortion Ban Sought Again"

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan


This isnt the issue. I think a very very VERY tiny amount of people would support that. Partial birth abortion is only allowable when the mother's life is in danger. You must understand that if the mother's life is in danger, both the fetus and the mother are in danger. The doctor can then recommend (if he believes its needed) that the mother abort the fetus late term. The mother then can decide to do so, or not. This is NOT birth control 9 months down the road. The Supreme Court decision only upheld partial birth abortions in the case that the mother's life was in danger and the doctor felt aborting the fetus would help. Your gory description (thankfully) doesnt apply to the situation as it stands now.

Exactly. Nobody carries a fetus around for 8 1/2 months and then decides to abort.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: dahunan
I am not against "early" abortions....

Will an abortion supporter please answer a question for me....?>

Should a woman be allowed to kill (abort) the baby on day 269? If she is allowed to kill (abort) the baby on that day then what is wrong with giving birth and snatching the baby from the nurse and smashing it into the ground and ending it's life right after it is born??

Also..what about day 268..267..266...where do you draw the line?

Personally, I think it's rather arrogant for people ("scientists"?) to think they know when someone is "human" or not..

I can't help but wonder -- how many 'Einsteins' and 'Beethovens' would we have if there weren't 1,000,000+ abortions per year..

I think it's rather arrogant for people ("fundies"?) to think they know when someone is "human" or not..

We may not agree when life starts, but we should agree that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body.

Take a stand.... is date of birth, as in the day a Birth Certificate is issued, the only day that a woman should not be able to murder a human child? Why can't they kill the baby after it is born up until about, oh say... 6 months? Maybe after 6 months they will know if they WANT to care for it or not??

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I am not against "early" abortions....

Will an abortion supporter please answer a question for me....?>

Should a woman be allowed to kill (abort) the baby on day 269? If she is allowed to kill (abort) the baby on that day then what is wrong with giving birth and snatching the baby from the nurse and smashing it into the ground and ending it's life right after it is born??

Because as has already been mentiond several times, abortions of fetuses that can sustain life are already illegal. Viable ones are only aborted to save the mother's life, and how can you make that illegal?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Btw -- religious people aren't the only pro-lifers around...linky

No one said that, but would you deny that religious people make up the vast majority of pro-life supporters (considering the majority of people are religious anyway)? Anyway, atheists and agnostics, and other "religion-less" people aren't the only pro-choice supporters. There's a pretty decent mix on both sides I'm willing to bet.

I could be wrong about that and would more than willing to admit it, but I don't feel like searching for stats 'cause I'm hungry right now. 😉

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: dahunan
I am not against "early" abortions....

Will an abortion supporter please answer a question for me....?>

Should a woman be allowed to kill (abort) the baby on day 269? If she is allowed to kill (abort) the baby on that day then what is wrong with giving birth and snatching the baby from the nurse and smashing it into the ground and ending it's life right after it is born??

Because as has already been mentiond several times, abortions of fetuses that can sustain life are already illegal. Viable ones are only aborted to save the mother's life, and how can you make that illegal?

I apologize, I am in agreement that any abortion conducted to save the life of the Parent should be allowed....

I became irritated by some of the replies in this thread and didn't even read the whole article. For that I apologize.

I could never support Partial Birth Abortions as a convenience killing

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: HendrixFan


This isnt the issue. I think a very very VERY tiny amount of people would support that. Partial birth abortion is only allowable when the mother's life is in danger. You must understand that if the mother's life is in danger, both the fetus and the mother are in danger. The doctor can then recommend (if he believes its needed) that the mother abort the fetus late term. The mother then can decide to do so, or not. This is NOT birth control 9 months down the road. The Supreme Court decision only upheld partial birth abortions in the case that the mother's life was in danger and the doctor felt aborting the fetus would help. Your gory description (thankfully) doesnt apply to the situation as it stands now.

Exactly. Nobody carries a fetus around for 8 1/2 months and then decides to abort.

NOt True, Some women give birth and then leave the baby in a bathroom or throw it in a dumpster somewhere<<same thing as an abortion.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Johnnie
this needs to be banned.....killing is wrong.

i think we should make a law that people should mind there own business

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: dahunan



I apologize, I am in agreement that any abortion conducted to save the life of the Parent should be allowed....

Well that's exactly what this bill wants to eliminate, but it already failed once so there's little to worry about. The Republicans have stooped to shock tactics to gain support, which is sad. Sometimes surgery is disgusting and horrific, but necessary. I'm sure a WW2 field medic could tell some stories that would make your stomach turn, but I don't see anyone calling for a ban on field amputations.

 

[jjones]

I thought partial birth abortions were only legal when the mother's life was in danger. Why would you want to ban that? Doesn't make much sense if both mother and child die.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: dahunan


NOt True, Some women give birth and then leave the baby in a bathroom or throw it in a dumpster somewhere<<same thing as an abortion.

Some people are just crazy...but that's a prime example of why access to early stage abortions must not be limited. Some would prefer that teens spend their whole lives paying for a mistake, but I'd rather abort a zygote that have a healthy newborn flushed down a toilet.

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: dahunan


NOt True, Some women give birth and then leave the baby in a bathroom or throw it in a dumpster somewhere<<same thing as an abortion.

Some people are just crazy...but that's a prime example of why access to early stage abortions must not be limited. Some would prefer that teens spend their whole lives paying for a mistake, but I'd rather abort a zygote that have a healthy newborn flushed down a toilet.

Wouldn't that clog the toilet?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: dahunan


NOt True, Some women give birth and then leave the baby in a bathroom or throw it in a dumpster somewhere<<same thing as an abortion.

Some people are just crazy...but that's a prime example of why access to early stage abortions must not be limited. Some would prefer that teens spend their whole lives paying for a mistake, but I'd rather abort a zygote that have a healthy newborn flushed down a toilet.

Wouldn't that clog the toilet?

Not if the Rats wre hungry.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: jjones
I thought partial birth abortions were only legal when the mother's life was in danger. Why would you want to ban that? Doesn't make much sense if both mother and child die.

They are, which is why this bill is a smokescreen to get the pro-life agenda's foot in the door. The bill claims to allow exceptions for saving the mother's life, but they've put in so many loopholes and contradictions to make that exception noting more than cheap window dressing to fool the Supreme Court. I doubt they'll fall for it.

 

[drewshin]

...in this situation, it's the life of a child -- one who cannot defend him or herself. There's basically a war on unborn children..some are fighting to protect them, and others are happily killing them. I'm actually suprised how many posters in this thread stood up for the pro-life people..

how can you say happily killing them? i have two friends that have had abortions and it was the toughest decision of their life, but in the end they feel they made the right decision to wait until they are ready to raise a family. actually, both of them now say that they will not have another abortion because of what they went through, but feel that others should also have this choice if they would like.

it seems like most of these obnoxious pro-lifers are guys that have no idea what is going on, except "killing is wrong!" (i can understand women who are against abortion)

yes, do pro-lifers support the death penalty? do they believe in the sanctity of life then, even though a certain percentage of them could be innocent?

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: Johnnie
this needs to be banned.....killing is wrong.

i think we should make a law that people should mind there own business

There's no reason in hell that a US citizen's civil rights should be any less viable five minutes before birth, as five minutes after!

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: Johnnie
this needs to be banned.....killing is wrong.

i think we should make a law that people should mind there own business

There's no reason in hell that a US citizen's civil rights should be any less viable five minutes before birth, as five minutes after!

Explain to me how a fetus is given right via the constitution.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: Johnnie
this needs to be banned.....killing is wrong.

i think we should make a law that people should mind there own business

There's no reason in hell that a US citizen's civil rights should be any less viable five minutes before birth, as five minutes after!

Umm, people aren't people until they are born. And you aren't a US citizen until you are born in the US. It's quite simple really.

 

[Ornery]

All we need to do is pass one of these ACTS, and they WILL have the same rights as you or I. Just the stroke of a pen, my friend!

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Link

My thoughts are pretty much summed up by this:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., countered that Congress has no business intruding on a decision between a woman and her doctor.

I worry that if something like this passes then it opens a doorway for the religious-right to try to (and successfully) ban all abortions.

Partial Birth abortion is not the same as early abortion of a fetus.

"Partial birth" means just that. A baby that is almost near term, has premature labor induced. Then, before the babie's head makes out of the birth canal, the doctor inserts a hollow needle-tube through the abdomen and birth canal into the back of the babies skull, and then a pump sucks out the brains. Then the baby is allowed to exit the birth canal, dead of course.

This is just a "legal" way of killing a baby since it dies before it makes it out and is delcared born. Because otherwise the baby in most cases would have survived.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
...in this situation, it's the life of a child -- one who cannot defend him or herself. There's basically a war on unborn children..some are fighting to protect them, and others are happily killing them.

Happily killing them? Dunno about that

 

[Harvey]

The morons who want to stick their noses between a woman and her doctor are great arugments for retroactive abortion. :disgust:

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The morons who want to stick their noses between a woman and her doctor are great arugments for retroactive abortion. :disgust:

What about the morons who want to stick their noses between the baby and life outside?

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The morons who want to stick their noses between a woman and her doctor are great arugments for retroactive abortion. :disgust:

I find it almost amusing that nobody thinks twice about a newborn baby being protected by the Constitution, but giving those same rights to one about to be born is just unthinkable!

Well, it's NOT unthinkable. It could become reality soon! :Q

 

[SilverThief]

That is disgusting. It should be banned.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Link

My thoughts are pretty much summed up by this:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., countered that Congress has no business intruding on a decision between a woman and her doctor.

I worry that if something like this passes then it opens a doorway for the religious-right to try to (and successfully) ban all abortions.

Partial Birth abortion is not the same as early abortion of a fetus.

"Partial birth" means just that. A baby that is almost near term, has premature labor induced. Then, before the babie's head makes out of the birth canal, the doctor inserts a hollow needle-tube through the abdomen and birth canal into the back of the babies skull, and then a pump sucks out the brains. Then the baby is allowed to exit the birth canal, dead of course.

This is just a "legal" way of killing a baby since it dies before it makes it out and is delcared born. Because otherwise the baby in most cases would have survived.

But the mother wouldnt have. Read the Supreme Court's decision before spreading mis-truths.