"Partial Birth' Abortion Ban Sought Again"

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: 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

Do you ever wonder why people dont think twice about the rights of an elderly man, but giving those same right to the dead is just unthinkable?

Do you?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
What about the morons who want to stick their noses between the baby and life outside?

What about the morons who don't give a damn about whether the mother would live or die if the pregnancy wasn't terminated at that point?

 

[Jadow]

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

Yeah, well what about the innocent third party involved in this? The LIVING BABY, who according to the latest research, may be CONSCIOUS as early as 24 weeks!

 

[ScottyB]

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

Yeah, well what about the innocent third party involved in this? The LIVING BABY, who according to the latest research, may be CONSCIOUS as early as 24 weeks!

It's not a living baby, it's a living fetus.

 

[HendrixFan]

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

Yeah, well what about the innocent third party involved in this? The LIVING BABY, who according to the latest research, may be CONSCIOUS as early as 24 weeks!

I hope if I say this enough it will sink in. The Supreme Court has ruled that partial birth abortions are okay ONLY if the mother's life is in danger. This isnt about a woman's decision to have an abortion, its about a woman's decision to LIVE.

The Supreme Court has NEVER upheld any claim that a woman should be able to have a partial birth abortion freely.

 

[Dragnov]

Well as soon as some replacement Supreme Court Justices come in office, federal law allowing abortion will be struck down and left up to the states.

 

[Jadow]

The Supreme Court has ruled that partial birth abortions are okay

does that make it right? If the supreme court said jumping rape and murder was okay, would you do it?

Besides, this supreme court is gonna get broken up pretty soon, and hopefully, Bush will appoint some people who believe life is sacred. Unlike his stupid father who made the worst supreme court appointment of all time!

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

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

Yeah, well what about the innocent third party involved in this? The LIVING BABY, who according to the latest research, may be CONSCIOUS as early as 24 weeks!

I hope if I say this enough it will sink in. The Supreme Court has ruled that partial birth abortions are okay ONLY if the mother's life is in danger. This isnt about a woman's decision to have an abortion, its about a woman's decision to LIVE.

The Supreme Court has NEVER upheld any claim that a woman should be able to have a partial birth abortion freely.

The BOLD comments are your friend

The BOLD comments are your friend

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: 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.

Explain to me who gave you the authority to say a fetus isn't human.

Originally posted by: 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

If abortion doctors didn't mind, why do we have millions of abortions?

I have definitely heard of the people who have had the abortions regretting their decisions...but the doctors keep on going.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Jadow


Besides, this supreme court is gonna get broken up pretty soon, and hopefully, Bush will appoint some people who believe life is sacred. Unlike his stupid father who made the worst supreme court appointment of all time!

Actually he seems to be leaning towards ignoring the zealot faction and latching on to the Hispanic faction in that regard. His top choice for the SC is a Hispanic with views on abortion that could best be described as wishy washy.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

If abortion doctors didn't mind, why do we have millions of abortions?

Because some doctors didn't get their medical degrees in Sunday School. They are serving the patient, not some ancient book that also happens to have guidelines on how to treat your new Jew slave.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: Jadow
The Supreme Court has ruled that partial birth abortions are okay

does that make it right? If the supreme court said jumping rape and murder was okay, would you do it?

Besides, this supreme court is gonna get broken up pretty soon, and hopefully, Bush will appoint some people who believe life is sacred. Unlike his stupid father who made the worst supreme court appointment of all time!

No that doesnt make it "right". It makes it legal. The two arent necessarily intwined.

 

[Jadow]

If you're referring to Estrada, he's Bush's choice for the Federal Appeals court.

According to democrats, who do their litmus test on Abortion, any judge who is pro-life is a right wing whacko zealot. I think that believing that helps them sleep at night.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Jadow
If you're referring to Estrada, he's Bush's choice for the Federal Appeals court.

No, not him. He might as well go back to Legal Hut.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: 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

Do you ever wonder why people dont think twice about the rights of an elderly man, but giving those same right to the dead is just unthinkable?

Do you?

Unborn aren't dead, spudnut!

 

[Jadow]

Unborn aren't dead, spudnut!

They're UNdead!

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: 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.

Explain to me who gave you the authority to say a fetus isn't human.

I think I know where you are going with this. Ultimately, only "God" can decide such things, if you believe in God.

However, Im not arguing that I have any divine decision making abilities. Im merely explaining the legality of the situation. Who has the authority? The government. In the Constitution, its clear that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" refers do rights being granted after birth. That is a clear dividing line.

Now states have assumed the responsibility of ensuring viable fetus' are given a chance to come to term. The states claim a "legitimate interest" in the unborn child, and have put limits on the time frame in which women can undergo abortions. The Supreme Court agrees with this. However, the issue at hand is the mother's claim to life, not the unborn fetus. This whole "issue" is a smokescreen. This has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Read the Supreme Court's ruling about the Nebraska Partial Birth Abortion Ban.

Based on the fact that the fetus isnt protected in the US, and the mother is, the mother is able to decide to live or die without the unborn fetus' consent.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: 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

Do you ever wonder why people dont think twice about the rights of an elderly man, but giving those same right to the dead is just unthinkable?

Do you?

Unborn aren't dead, spudnut!

Unborn aren't "alive" legally, spudnut!

 

[Ornery]

"...the fact that the fetus isnt protected in the US..."

Once upon a time, it was a fact that some of legal aged citizens weren't allowed to vote. We fixed that, we'll fix this...

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"...the fact that the fetus isnt protected in the US..."

Once upon a time, it was a fact that some of legal aged citizens weren't allowed to vote. We fixed that, we'll fix this...

You are very correct. However, the country has been moving left on this issue for over 30 years, just as it moved left on the issue of many legal aged citizens that werent allowed to vote. My guess is that trends will continue to push leftward, slowly but surely, as they always have done.

But to get back to the issue at hand, partial birth abortion is about saving a woman's life. It isnt a method of birth control as some people seem to believe (as they have been told, no real fault of their own).

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

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

1) Who would enforce it?
2) Would ATOT dissolve... or just go underground?

 

[Ornery]

"...partial birth abortion is about saving a woman's life..."

Like when the head is accidently delivered before the doctor is able to suck out the contents?

• Failed partial-birth abortions

 

[datalink7]

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.

I agree 100% that women that women should have a right to choose what to do with their own bodies.

But why are you bringing that into the argument? The argument isn't over whether they have a right to choose what to do with their bodies, but whether that is their body at all.

I hate the "right to own body" argument because it is totally missing what the argument is about.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"...partial birth abortion is about saving a woman's life..."

Like when the head is accidently delivered before the doctor is able to suck out the contents?

• Failed partial-birth abortions

I dont care what lies you can dig up, nor any misinformation.

"In a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska ban on so-called "partial-birth abortion," finding it an unconstitutional violation of Roe v. Wade. Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer found that the Nebraska ban violates the Supreme Court precedents Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey by failing to include an exception to preserve the health of the woman and by imposing an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose an abortion

In addition, the Court determined that the effect of the bans went well beyond prohibitions against so-called "late term" abortion, finding the ban to be so broad and vague that constitutionally protected abortion procedures performed before viability could be prohibited. The majority decision was joined by five Justices. Four separate dissenting opinions were filed by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, demonstrating that Roe and the right to choose is imperiled. "

Here is the decision itself, educate yourself and please stop spreading lies.

 

[jlee]

5-4 is pretty close, IMHO..and I thought the argument was kinda touching the right/wrong aspect as well as the purely legal aspect..but perhaps I'm mistaken.