there will be many soon-to-be mothers that will die because of this legislation. I hope the right-wing are proud of killing moms.

there will be many soon-to-be mothers that will die because of this legislation. I hope the right-wing are proud of killing moms.

Posted by Audrey_Hepburn at 2007-07-14 10:49 AM | Reply

FROM THE ARTICLE:

"The new law allows the procedure only when the mother's life would be endangered without it."

This is what is otherwise known as partial-birth abortion, in which only the baby's head remains in the birth canal. If that's a threat to the mother's life, just pull it out.

But at least abortion is being regulated at the state level, where it belongs.

Audrey proves once again that the Left has never been honest about abortion. Just that every woman is entitled to a dead baby, on demand.

those crazy cajun bastards in the trailor parks by the bayou.....

to think that they have a problem with a doctor pulling the child out and taking something and sticking it into thier brain until the brains just leak out into can with other children's remains in them.
whats wrong with these stupid bastards.

This law is meaningless. This law was already inplace. This procedure was only ever legal to save the life of the mother.

I doubt any of you mental giants on the right know anything about the procedure that would REPLACE the late term abortion procedure now under discussion. Your kind of person never thinks that far ahead.

Isn't Blanco a Democrat?

Late term abortions (after 6 months) should only be used to protect the life of the mother. 6 months is plenty of time for a woman to determine if she wants to have a baby.

I guess they must think they have some privacy rights BLT, how novel is that?

If you dammed christofacists don't want an abortion, you don't have to get one.

It is none of your dammed business if someone else wants to.

Asshole.

AUDREY HEPBURN:

"there will be many soon-to-be mothers that will die because of this legislation"

Do you have any data to support this statement? How many PBAs were performed to actually save the life of a mother?

"The new law allows the procedure only when the mother's life would be endangered without it. It would be a crime in all other cases, including when the pregnancy is expected to cause health problems for the mother."

Oh, I see. If the mother dies during a dangerous birth then it's "Oops, sorry we thought she'd die later". Doctors should be making these decisions, not right wing nutjobs and religious wackoids or Democratic governors pandering to them.

I guess they must think they have some privacy rights BLT, how novel is that?

Posted by Custer at 2007-07-14 11:20 AM | Reply

Custer, would you like the law to protect you from having scissors thrust into your brain? Or is that a private matter?

How many PBAs were performed to actually save the life of a mother?

Posted by NJDevil at 2007-07-14 11:25 AM


All of them---or it was performed on an already dead fetus. PBA's are not legal otherwise.

CUSTER:
You couldn't be more wrong on that. Especially when we are forced to pay taxes to subsidize them. But the real issue at stake is that the action itself is horrific.
If you just stop and think about the actual procedure, it's just too damn cruel and painful to a baby. I really don't know how anyone could entertain the idea.

"Especially when we are forced to pay taxes to subsidize them"

You pay no taxes toward abortion

Custer, would you like the law to protect you from having scissors thrust into your brain? Or is that a private matter?

Posted by vernon at 2007-07-14 11:30 AM


Gosh you'd think a hospital could come up with some scalpals. Scizzors is it? Wouldn't garden clippers be faster? Do you think it hurts the already dead fetus, or do you just think fetuses are more important than the woman whose life was just saved?

BUFFALO BOB:

Go to Wikipedia and read about the funding of Planned Parenthood, one of the strongest advocates/supporters of PBAs.

Regarding an already dead fetus vs. a living, viable human, that shouldn't even be an issue here.

NJDevil---It IS already an issue here. The procedure is banned even on dead fetuses.

Planned Parenthood gets a third of their financing through government grants. That leaves two thirds that come from other sources. None of that goes to pay for abortions. Abortions are not free at Planned Parenthood.

"or do you just think fetuses are more important than the woman whose life was just saved?"

No, I for one, do not. I just wonder how many of the mothers lives are in real jeopardy.

I still dont understand the need for the proceedure. couldnt they just cesarian.....I guess though if the mother is at risk that might not be an option.,


now custer and bob......there is a comment on this debate without your middle school level comments......

custer.......called me an asshole...

oh yeah......well I know you are but what am I?

nana nana booboo.........there.....is that low enough for you?

and back to topic,,,,,,,,

I guess they wouldnt cesarian the baby because then they would have a living human being where in a liberals mind, that plasm really isnt even though the heart is beating and the head is formed and who is to say that those scissors dont go right through the soul.........

and here is another liberal bullshit thrown out.....

did any of you read where the tree hugger was all worried about fish feeling pain when caught........and yet,,,,,,,,here the left is all for jabbing scissors into the head of a human........it makes no sense,

NJDevil

If her live isn't in danger, and the fetus is not dead, there are no legal abortions after 24 weeks anyplace in the US.

BUFFALO BOB:

"It IS already an issue here. The procedure is banned even on dead fetuses."

If this is true, then you educated me. I did not find this fact in the link to the story out of Louisiana. I assume that you are familiar with this new law or the federal ban. Could you suggest a link to me so I can read up on it?

"I guess they wouldnt cesarian the baby because then they would have a living human being where in a liberals mind, that plasm really isnt even though the heart is beating and the head is formed and who is to say that those scissors dont go right through the soul........."


Wouldn't it be a nice world if people like you knew WTF they were talking about just ONCE in a while? PBA's are usually performed on WANTED fetuses, and if a ceasarian could save the fetus, it would be done. Besides that, it is illegal to perform abortions anyplace in the country after 24 weeks unless the life or health of the mother is at stake, or the fetus is already dead.

Now tell us the procedure that would replace PBA. Share more of your ignorance with us. The scissor thingy was good. Guess what---they started using scalpals two centuries ago--right after they discovered medicine works better than shaking feathers and dancing as a cure for sickness.

If her live isn't in danger, and the fetus is not dead, there are no legal abortions after 24 weeks anyplace in the US.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob
* * *

That's the law in Britain. Not here.

Now just wait a minute, Bob! I'll be damned if you start attacking my feather shaking dances to ward off evil spirits.

NJdevil

Abortion laws vary from state to state. Most states restrict abortion at 22 weeks, but some allow to 24 weeks. You have to check your state, but if you have questions, you can call Planned Parenthood. They will inform you that abortions are not free, and there are no elective abortions after 24 weeks.

The only time PBAs are performed legally is if the life of the mother is at stake, or the fetus is already dead. Other than that, the abortion is already illegal.

That's the law in Britain. Not here.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-07-14 12:06 PM |


There are no laws in the United States that allow for abortion after 24 weeks unless the life of the mother is at statke or the fetus is already dead.

Post your link to a state that allows abortion after 24 weeks.

Planned Parenthood gets a third of their financing through government grants. That leaves two thirds that come from other sources. None of that goes to pay for abortions. Abortions are not free at Planned Parenthood.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob
then why do they need any govt funding at all? if abortions arent free?

Rightisright

So? No state allows abortion after 24 weeks. Your link validates that point.

Give me a link to a state that allows abortion after 24 weeks.

In all, 36 states prohibit abortions after a certain point in pregnancy. Of those, 23 ban abortions at viability; five ban it in the third trimester; and eight ban the procedure after 24 weeks.

Right, thanks for the link. More proof that most Americans dod not support the "abortion on demand" right up to birth advocated by so many on the far-left.

A woman's "right to Choose" should not be without limits Especially since a human life is at stake.

then why do they need any govt funding at all? if abortions arent free?

Posted by cheka at 2007-07-14 12:27 PM


Because abortion isn't the only thing they do. Education is a big part. Think of the name PLANNED PARENTHOOD. This is a group dedicated to forming stable families for children. If you doubt me on the payment for abortion, simply call your Planned Parenthood office and ask them. Cost is around $400.

Rightisright

So? No state allows abortion after 24 weeks. Your link validates that point.

Give me a link to a state that allows abortion after 24 weeks.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob
* * * *

Um, what's your problem, Bob? Are you aware that there are 50 states?

"More proof that most Americans dod not support the "abortion on demand" right up to birth advocated by so many on the far-left."

I doubt you will find one person on the left who advocates elective abortion rights right up until the time of birth.

You are a liar.

Um, what's your problem, Bob? Are you aware that there are 50 states?

Posted by rightisright at 2007-07-14 12:32 PM |


Um---yes---I understand that very well. Do you understand that you have not linked to one of those fifty that allows elective abortions after 24 weeks. The states not mentioned in your link have shorter period abortion restrictions--not longer.

Post your link to a state that allows elective abortions after 24 weeks.

Hint: The third trimester begins at the start of 25th week.

I doubt you will find one person on the left who advocates elective abortion rights right up until the time of birth.

LOL

Bob, I've found you to be just about the biggest liar here -- stooping so low as to post fake quotes from the founding fathers to prove your deeply flawed opinions.

And as everyone knows, anyone who advocates "abortion on demand" up to birth for the "health" rather then the "life" of the mother is essentially advocating elective abortion up to birth.

That's because the definition of what constitutes "health" is completely subjective amd could mean just about anything-- for example "Depression".

I don't think there are many on the "Right" who believe that there are some times where abortion might be necessry to save the "life" of the mother. But those happen much earlier in a pregnancy.

After viability, a fetus usually can be delivered alive in order to save the life of both the mother and the fetus.

There should never be a reason to kill a baby at 9 months when it could just as easlily and safely be delivered alive.

good chance you owe Bowa an apology.

Right, don't you know that being a left wing extremist means never having to say you're sorry.

As for the elective abortions after viability because of "catastrophic fetal anomaly or genetic disorder that guarantees death, suffering, or serious disability for the baby" that is a slippery slope whereby the state is put into the position of playing God" and determining what is "normal" and permitted to live, and what is not normal and allowed to be "killed".

I mean women in Europe have been known to get late term abortions because of "hairlips" or "Club feet" on the baby which are easily correctable.

There is something deeply troubling about a society that would allow that.

Ans something just as troubling about a political party that would support seem to support such measures -- yet another reason why I am a Republican, as flawed as the party is.

Rightisright

UM--your link proves nothing. Let me try again to get through to you.

No State in the United States allows elective abortions after 24 weeks unless the health or life of the mother is at stake---and a DOCTOR makes that decision. That means it isn't elective.

Your link proved my point---the women had trouble finding a doctor to perform the procedure because it was NO LONGER ELECTIVE. That means it was PAST THE TIME THE STATE ALLOWED FOR ELECTIVE ABORTIONS.

Link me to a state that allows elective abortions after 24 weeks.

There should never be a reason to kill a baby at 9 months when it could just as easlily and safely be delivered alive.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-07-14 12:46 PM | Reply


Killing nine month old babies is illegal in every state, and every country with a legal code.

"Right, don't you know that being a left wing extremist means never having to say you're sorry. "

This, from the guy who's still claiming Plame was a desk jockey, despite CIA statements, multiple linked documentations, court proclamations, and even an admission from the President.

"there will be many soon-to-be mothers that will die because of this legislation"

First of all, you didn't read the article. It says if the mother's life is in danger, the law does not apply.

Secondly, partial birth abortion is baby killing in many cases. It is killing a child that could survive if it was delivered prematurely on the same day.

I'm not against abortion but I am against killing babies and that is what late term abortions amount to in many cases.

I don't see what is unreasonable about expecting women to make the decision about abortion before the child the are carrying becomes a viable.

This, from the guy who's still claiming Plame was a desk jockey, despite CIA statements, multiple linked documentations, court proclamations, and even an admission from the President.

LOL

Bob tries to deflect the thread because he got busted.

Hilarious.

I'll answer this one over at the nooner -- so he doesn't get away with his dishonest deflection here.

Um, it wasn't Bob, Bowa...if you look, there's a little thing on the end which shows who wrote the post.

Which reminds me...while you danced around it cutely, you never directly answered my question of the other night:

Do you have any financial stake whatsoever in, say, Rudy becoming the nominee?

planned parenthood recievies no money from the government to administer abortions

in the case of a pregancny, they are only allowed to offer non directvie pregnancy options that cover everything from keeping the baby to abortion.

to my knowlege planned parent hood has never been found by the federal government to offer anything but non directive prenany counceling with federal funds.

planned parenthood does offer abortions, but they do so with private funds

second sentence should say: no directive pregnancy counceling, not pregnany options

Oh, I see. Buffalo Bob is one of those guys who believes that if he just keeps repeating the same thing, over and over, it magically becomes true.

Hello. The link is from the website of the Boulder hospital, ADVERTISING their third-trimester abortion services. Maybe you should call the Colorado attorney general, and inform him that the hospital there is breaking the law, as you perceive it to be in the very limited confines of your own mind.

Or, maybe you're just mistaken. Many states HAVE, indeed, proscribed abortions in the third trimester except in the case of the mother's health. Six states (Colorado, Maine, Washington, Hawaii among them) have no restrictions whatsoever.

And--maybe you should ask someone in your household for help with this, because I'm going to ask you to make a logical deduction---if partial-birth and late-term abortions will still be permitted in the case of the woman's health in danger, why is NARAL so upset about these laws? After all, if their effect is nil, why bother?

Duh.

Which reminds me...while you danced around it cutely, you never directly answered my question of the other night:

Yes I did. Now run along and go check that other thread.

Silly silly Liberals, so filled with arrogance and conceit that they find it impossible to believe that anyone could disagree with their twisted view of the world without there being some angle involved.

Oh, I see. Buffalo Bob is one of those guys who believes that if he just keeps repeating the same thing, over and over, it magically becomes true.

That seems to be the MO of many people here

"Yes I did. "

No...you admitted you hadn't answered it, but I'll give you another chance, to answer it directly:

Do you have any financial stake whatsoever in, say, Rudy becoming the nominee?

Gotta give you a clue here---the dems haven't come out for the rights of European women to abort because of
"hairlips" or "Club feet"---when they do, I'll support you on that point.

Oh but they already did Bob.

The Democrats did so the moment they put in their platform "Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose." without any limits attached to that statement.

Face it, the Democrats have lost the moral high ground on abortion. And unless they put some limitations on a women's right to choose in their 2008 platform, then they will be handing the GOP a huge advantage on the issue -- especially if "pro-choice with limitations" Giuliani is the candidate.

No...you admitted you hadn't answered it, but I'll give you another chance, to answer it directly:

That's not true. I answered it.
Now run along and go searching through that other thread.

I'll give you a hint. It is a one word answer.

It is Hypocritical LOKISFUR to condemn Democrats for supporting a Womans right to choose and subsequently supporting Rudy's same stance on the Issue. It makes You a Pathological Liar and a Fraud.

Larry

"Hello. The link is from the website of the Boulder hospital, ADVERTISING their third-trimester abortion services. Maybe you should call the Colorado attorney general, and inform him that the hospital there is breaking the law, as you perceive it to be in the very limited confines of your own mind."


You seem to miss the point of ELECTIVE. The abortions they are advertising for are for WANTED fetuses. That's why the first sentence makes it clear that these are WANTED fetuses, and that they are being aborted according to the point of being a danger to the mothers life or health.

Now link to a state that has ELECTIVE abortions after 24 weeks. Can understand this simple request? In Colorado it is illegal to have an ELECTIVE abortion after 24 weeks.

2 Rudy thongs for the price of 1 going fast going soon Sale last until Sunday Noon.

Larry

Abortion is murder so banning these abortions is the right and moral thing to do. Liberals gasp in horror about the loss of life in Iraq and then fight for the right to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent babies at home. What hypocrites.

Every abortion doctor and every person who seeks an abortion should be locked up in prison with the other killers. Way to go La. I'm proud of you.

"I'll give you a hint. It is a one word answer."

Another non-denial denial.

Utastaff

So in your Prison world, do the women raise the children in prison, or does the State confiscate them and raise them as good little drones? Of course most of them will be deformed and mentally incapacitated, but the State can always use them for some political gain---remember Terri Schiavo?

Baby killing is illegal. If you think there is baby killing going on, call the cops and they will explain your ignorance to you much better than I can.

"Six states (Colorado, Maine, Washington, Hawaii among them) have no restrictions whatsoever."

I missed your link. Could you post it again please?



"if partial-birth and late-term abortions will still be permitted in the case of the woman's health in danger, why is NARAL so upset about these laws? After all, if their effect is nil, why bother?

Duh."

Posted by rightisright at 2007-07-14 01:32 PM | Reply


Well DUHHHHH--they are going after the PROCEDURE---not the result. They don't care if the fetus is dead in the woman, it is the PROCEDURE they are fighting against.

They think if they get rid of the PROCEDURE, they will get rid of late term abortions. No. What happens is that the physician is forced to dismember the fetus in the womb and remove it piece by piece. They still use scissors and hacksaws and hedge clippers and weed eaters to suck the brains out, but this procedure is much more dangerous to the woman---like republicans care about that. The fetus is all to the republicans--even the dead ones.

Here's my personal experience with late-term abortion (D&X):
The mother has just found out, via ultrasound, that her little bundle of joy to be has an unfixable, guaranteed fatal birth defect. Thanks, zealots. You've just condemned her to have to carry this thing for another couple of months knowing it's doomed.
Fucking sadists.

The decision of whether or not to abort a fetus should be strictly an issue between doctor and the female patient. Politicians and philosophers should just butt out. Other people may have an interest or a concern, but given the personal and private medical nature of the procedure, the decision is only the business of the responsible doctor and the patient.

"If you think there is baby killing going on, call the cops and they will explain your ignorance to you much better than I can."

I would like an explanation, Bob. Since we all on this forum would benefit and it really doesn't make sense to call a cop and ask, please explain how an abortion is not killing. You admit you can't explain as well as a cop, but try me. I'm pretty sharp. I'm sure I'll get the gist of your explanation, weak as think it may be.

I'm pro abortion, (to start of 2nd trimester) but I'm not going to sugar coat it and say it's not killing a human, albeit an unborn one.

Please explain my ignorance.

re sugarcoating the issue:

Why is it that the people who are for abortion can't say that? They have to say "pro-choice". I'm pro choice, too. I think we should all be able to choose our shoes, whether or not we want mustard on our hamburgers, etc. But what does this have to do with abortion? Why don't they just say they are "pro abortion"? Or is it too ugly a word to use? Or maybe deep inside they know it is wrong, but by calling it something else, they feel better about it?

It is not sugarcoating the issue. Nobody is "pro-abortion". It is a serious invasive medical procedure. Unfortunately it is also sometimes medically necessary even late into the term of pregnancy. The correct term is "pro-choice" because supporters of the right are really saying that it is a choice which a woman has a right to make. Nobody is saying cheering on the termination of a fetus.

The decision of whether or not to abort a fetus should be strictly an issue between doctor and the female patient.

Aren't you forgetting someone. Like maybe that other human being who should become an equal part of that equation after viability.

well first of all....bob and modere......if you arent women then you need to shut the hell up........if I cant have a right to an opinion about the war on terror because I never served then you have no right to an opinion on abortion because you dont have a vagina.....
or do you?.......

BL2 that is a disingenous post. As a matter of public policy all opinions may be expressed. The position that is being stated by those of us who are pro-choice is that the correct approach is to view this as a medical decision strictly between doctor and patient.
As for the viable fetus, that of course comes into consideration. Which is why it is so important that the decision be made by the doctor and patient together, not by a bunch of politicians or theocratic ideologues.

As for the viable fetus, that of course comes into consideration. Which is why it is so important that the decision be made by the doctor and patient together, not by a bunch of politicians or theocratic ideologues.

Viability as the determining factor in personhood, has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

The moment a fetus becomes a unique person, a separate entity that can survive apart from the mother, it becomes deserving of all the other protections granted to every other human being under our secularly contructed law.

or how about leave it as a states rights issue.....you know the part of the constituion that says something about things not outlined.......

and of course all opinions may be expressed,.....unless you support the war and you didnt serve, then you express your opinion at your own peril as in some leftwing kook trying to tell you that you cant have an opinion on it....with the least of the attack being something about a trailor park and IQ
HOWEVER>....one thing you are forgetting......suppose your FOURTEEN year old daughter gets pregnant.......and she can have an abortion WITHOUT YOU EVEN KNOWING IT...

so much for your consultation theory...(which I dont disagree with, by the way..).....but again.....if your child is involved there are places where you have no right to know.........and the left LECTURES me about bush taking rights away..........

Ut Oh BLT has been in the Golf Ball glue again. Me thinks He needs some napkins filled with smelly salts and My dirty underwear that aught to wake His ass up.

Larry

If my teenage daughter got pregnant and chose to have an abortion without me knowing about it, I might not like the idea, but I would respect her right to privacy.

As for the tired old refrain about states rights... give it a break already. It is the refuge for those without any otherwise viable argument.

And yes, even if you are a chickenhawk you do have a right to express an opinion about the war. But the rest of us are also entitled to call you a despicable chickenhawk and disregard and disrespect you.

"Nobody is saying cheering on the termination of a fetus."

Excellent point.

modere....enough of the double talk.......
you say it would be her privacy and I say its the sate taking away your parental rights.......so its another case of liberals telling us that they know better than we do.......of course the best thing is to have a daughter who respects herself enough to avoid that but things do happen dont they?
and when they do, the father has a right to know.....period and stop....


its one of the absurdities of liberalism.......a child cant go to the zoo without parental permission or take aspirin at school but they can have major surgery that many of us consider a form of murder in some cases.......
liberals gone wild

And those of us with any compassion for the 13 year old girl would respect who right to both an abortion and privacy under those circumstances. The responsible position to take is to encourage the girl to report the crime. But if she chooses not to, it is morally correct for Planned Parenthood to presume to know what is best for her. I fully support Planned Parenthood on this issue. And once rhetoric is stripped from the argument, I suspect most reasonable people also support them on this.

As for parental rights, give me a break. A child is not the property of a parent. A parent may advise or teach a child, but that right is never absolute. There comes a point when any person has a right to make their own decisions without fear of parental retribution. Especially when facing as scary a situation as being young, unwed and pregnant.

As stated above, this should solely be an issue between a doctor and the patient. Parents, boyfriends, legislators and theists may have a position and a concern. But it is NOT morally their decision to make.

M8 -- I have to agree with the two Bs on this. A minor girl can't get a tattoo even with parents' consent in most states, yet she can get -- as you your self describe -- "a serious invasive medical procedure". It is unquestionably a double standard.

Also, why doesn't the father have a say? It is every bit his child as it is the mother's. Being an accident of biology that he isn't the one who carries the child doesn't it any less his. If she chose to have the child he would be forced by law to monetarily support it for 18 years. Yet he has no say if it lives or dies before birth? It is definitely another double standard.

i have to agree with goat on this one. as a man whose one time girlfriend recieved an abortion without telling him about it until 3 months later through a mutal friend, i am apalled at the double standard of society in this issue. a woman has the right to alter a mans life for the next 18-22 years(depending on how good her lawyer is) but the man has no say in keepnig HIS unborn child? even the most liberal amongst you would have to agree that, in this, women and men aren't equal. yes, i know its her body, but, its his life as well.

*** but the man has no say in keepnig HIS unborn child? Goatman***

......when we can arrange for the baby to come out of his urethra, upon his request, then the man should get a say in the foetuses future.....

Are you saying that my son is more his mother's son than he is mine? Bio 101: Each parent provides an equal set of genes. Only one can carry the baby to term. The parent who carries the baby to term is no more the "dominate" parent than the one who provided the sperm. Again, I defer to your HS biology book.

When we can arrange for a woman to reproduce parthenogenically, then she can have 100% say in the baby's fate.

Are you saying that my son is more his mother's son than he is mine? Bio 101: Each parent provides an equal set of genes. Only one can carry the baby to term. The parent who carries the baby to term is no more the "dominate" parent than the one who provided the sperm. Again, I defer to your HS biology book.


Try telling that to the judge when it comes time to award custody or child support.

It is a woman's body which is at risk during pregnancy. Not the man's life. If a woman in consultation with her doctor determine an abortion is the appropriate medical procedure then that is that. End of discussion. Until it is the man's life which is in danger as a result of the pregnancy the man should have very little say in the matter. If a guy doesn't like it, he shouldn't fuck.

"Until it is the man's life which is in danger as a result of the pregnancy the man should have very little say in the matter."

Obviously a life and death situation is a different matter. Though the thread was about PBAs in life and death situations, I was talking in more general terms.

"If a guy doesn't like it, he shouldn't fuck."

Right. And if you don't want to get heartburn, you shouldn't eat.

We all know how amazingly well the right-wing panacea to sex education -- abstinence -- works.

to think that they have a problem with a doctor pulling the child out and taking something and sticking it into thier brain until the brains just leak out into can with other children's remains in them.
whats wrong with these stupid bastards.

Thank goodness our inept govenor and state legislature FINALLY did something right.

This has nothing to do with protecting the MOTHER...she is still able to get the proceedure if HER life is in danger.

If only MOM PELOSI would have been able to get this done...lol!!!

There are some issues about which honest and intelligent people may never agree upon. Abortion (the circumstances when it is permissible, and who gets to decide) is clearly one of those issues.

I'm an abortion rights supporter, and I see no problem with this law. It makes an exception for an extreme circumstance. By the third trimester, the fetus has brain wave activity and a heartbeat...it could survive on its own.

Hold you daughter or granddaughter, then tell me that KILLING a baby should be legal. I realize that we all make mistakes, but killing a baby is not the correct way to make a problem go away.
My daughter got pregnant, and after diliberating, she kept the baby. She is now the happiest mother in the world. I couldn't imagine not seeing the two of them each weekend. I am sooooo very happy she decided to do the "right thing".

Killing a baby is illegal in all 50 states.

Secondly, partial birth abortion is baby killing in many cases. It is killing a child that could survive if it was delivered prematurely on the same day.

I'm not against abortion but I am against killing babies and that is what late term abortions amount to in many cases.

I don't see what is unreasonable about expecting women to make the decision about abortion before the child the are carrying becomes a viable.

Posted by Sully at 2007-07-14 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:


No, you're wrong.
Most late term abortions, in my experience as an OR nurse, are done for cases in which the kid isn't going to survive anyway. Fatal congenital defects. And I still think it's fucking sadistic to expect the mom to carry the thing to term knowing it isn't going to survive. Welcome to my very real world.

"Most late term abortions, in my experience as an OR nurse, are done for cases in which the kid isn't going to survive anyway."

Not if you worked for this guy...

"For information on why Dr. Haskell adopted the method, the 1993 interview in Cincinnati Medicine is very instructive. Dr. Haskell explained that he had been performing dismemberment abortions (D&Es) to 24 weeks:

But they were very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed that some of the later D&Es were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can't they all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot length presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was easy. . . . Then I said, "Well gee, if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I wouldn't have to feel around for it." I did that and sure enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of serendipity."

If you dammed christofacists don't want an abortion, you don't have to get one.

It is none of your dammed business if someone else wants to.

Asshole.


I disagree. It is my business, if the child is mine.

A girl I was once engaged to became pregnant and said she would not carry the child to term. She said she was going to have an abortion whether I helped pay for it or not. I didn't help pay for it because I don't think abortion is right. Not because of some religious reasons, but because there is a living being there.

But you see, it's a 'woman right' to have an abortion. It doesn't matter how the man feels about it. There is nothing a man can do because it's a woman's body and it's her decision.

Fine, it's her right, but it's still my business because it's my child.

"As for parental rights, give me a break. A child is not the property of a parent."

Well that's not what your hero states here...

"The late Dr. James McMahon performed thousands of partial-birth abortions, including the third-trimester abortions performed on the five women who appeared with President Clinton at his April 10 veto ceremony. Dr. McMahon's general approach is illustrated by this illuminating statement in the July 5, 1993 edition of American Medical News:

"[A]fter 20 weeks where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there. I think, 'Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be adopted.' On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: 'Who owns the child?' It's got to be the mother.'""

"And I still think it's fucking sadistic to expect the mom to carry the thing to term knowing it isn't going to survive."

And how sadistic do you think it is for your hero to kill a healthy baby (his own words above) 91% of the time?

"In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a "series" of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as involving "maternal [health] indications," of which the most common was "depression.""

And the Most Compassionate Abortionist award (specifically for the incredible restraint displayed in #5) goes to:

"However, Dr. Grundmann said, his Planned Parenthood clinic also offers the procedure after 20 weeks for women who fall into five additional "categories": (1) "minor or doubtful fetal abnormalities," (2) "extreme maternal immaturity i.e. girls in the 11 to 14 year age group," (3) women "who do not know they are pregnant," for example because of amenorrhea [irregular menstruation] "in women who are very active such as athletes or those under extreme forms of stress i.e. exam stress, relationship breakup...," (4) "intellectually impaired women, who are unaware of basic biology...," (5) "major life crises or major changes in socio-economic circumstances. The most common example of this is a planned or wanted pregnancy followed by the sudden death or desertion of the partner who is in all probability the bread winner.""

If you dammed christofacists don't want an abortion, you don't have to get one.

Viability as the determining factor in personhood, has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

The moment a fetus becomes a unique person, a separate entity that can survive apart from the mother, it becomes deserving of all the other protections granted to every other human being under our secularly constructed law.

The child isn't PROPERTY, I agree, but, if the MAN wants to keep the baby, and the MOM doesn't, She gets to choose. However, if HE doesn't want her to have the baby, and SHE wants to, HE pays child support. Maybe the man WANTING the child should be compensated if SHE kills it!

Let's stop this killing!!!!! There are murderers on death row that DESERVE to die. Oh thats right, the LIBS think child killing is right, but death row inmates shouldnt pay for their crime by death! Consistancy at it;s finest!!!

That's great. All this nation needs are more poor and stupid bitches putting more of their children into prisions and on welfare rolls. All we need are the same idiots who stop abortions refusing to pay benefits for welfare. Make up your mind.

It's another way of creating more debt and crime for the state.

Only regilious fanatics favor such a law-no medical basis

The only time this procedure was done was to save the life of the mother.

Why won't right wingers stay out of people's lives?

Because they have bought into a mindset whereby they feel morally justified in risking the life of a pregnant woman. It is obvious in many of the posts on this thread. Which is why it is important for conscientious people to financially support organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. It is that simple.

Religion and the law should be separated. It's that simple. Planned parent hood is a religious organization It's that simple... Just another reason for Catholic Ministers to molest more children

A late-term abortion should be allowed until the 18th year--if my kid pisses me off enough I will abort!

Goatman

Your problem is you read sentences, and cut out the words you don't like and put in words you think should be there---how's that working out for you?


I NEVER said there wasn't killing going on. I said there wasn't any BABY killing going on. BABY killing is illegal, and if you think someone is killing BABIES--call the cops. The cops will explain it to you very cleary that there is no BABY killing going on because BABY killing is illegal.

Did you see the word BABY anyplace in the previous paragraph? No? Look closer---I assure you it's there. It looks like this: BABY

According to R v W, it is the Physician's medical judgment that is the measure of whether abortion is performed.

Where in R v W does it ever state there is a right to choose? The right to choose was addressed and there is no right.

Therefore, there is no elective before or after 24 weeks.

To solve the whole abortion issue, all the States need to do is require every abortion to have two opinions that the abortion should be performed for medical reasons.

Financial issues are not a medical reason for abortion.
Social issues are not a medical reason for abortion.
The Burden is not a medical reason for an abortion.
Age of the mother is not a medical reason for an abortion.
Being unprepared is not a medical reason for an abortion.