Sean no one ever said that most abortions were performed using this procedure. I find it funny that you seem to think that most of the ones that do you these procedures are on brain dead babies though.

No kidding not every abortion performed is a partial birth abortion. Who ever said it was. You have to stop making shit up.

What evidence have you shown me? You haven't presented shit. You posted a link to the Center for Reproductive Rights. That is one of the leading pro-abortion organizations in the country. I wouldn't believe a damn thing they had to say. Anything that comes from them is pure pro-abortion propaganda. You have to post neutral sources if you want your so-called evidence to be even considered.

That about sums it up, none of anyone's damn business but the woman, the father, and the doctor. So yeah, it gets a big old *yawn* from me.

Bzzzz, try again. You're forgetting that there's another party involved... the baby. Since it's not old enough to have a say in the matter, I'm glad the government has stepped in to protects it's right at a chance to live a life too. No one here can relate to an aborted baby since we all obviously made it through.

Damnit, I said I wasn't going to get involved.

Guess what, the BABY isn't being aborted for convenience. I really can't see that this procedure would be performed if there weren't a life that were already doomed, either the baby's or the mother's.

That's just it. That is what I was attempting to get through to Sean about. I foget the exact numbers, but there was something like that less than 10 cases where the baby was killed because the mother's life depended on it. And this is over the past 20 years. This is just a spin or a "what-if" the pro-baby killers place on abortion.

Wrong Brent.

This bill still has a provision to save the mothers life. That is not the point. The whole thing is that this type of abortion procedure is used in many thousands of cases every year across America in the 2nd and 3rd trimester on healthy mothers carrying healthy babies. The only reason this is done in these cases is to get rid of the problem. The problem being an unwanted baby.

No one here has claimed a problem with this where the mothers life was in jeopardy. The life of the mother is still protected. The problem is the abuse and proliferation of this form of murder strictly for convienence.

Here is some interesting reading about the media's handling of this issue from an actually very liberal source... PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/mediamatters99/transcript2.html

An accurate graphic rendering of the procedure:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/rollovers/animationpbaa.gif

Madman you just summed it up very well. Anyone who thinks the majority of abortions is because of health reasons is living in a dream world.

Anyway, as stated, the bill DOES allow for this procedure to be used if the mother's life is in danger. From what I have heard there are always alternatives, but they put it in there just in case.

The Dems wanted the whole 'health of the mother' thing put in. This idiot judge that ruled against the law wants the same thing. It would make the bill completely useless, because any pregnancy is a risk to the mother's health. The far left are playing on the 'health of the mother' crap just like Sean is. The all fail to mention that there is a provision if the mother's life is truely in danger. It is spin plane and simple. Judging from the polls we have seen only the far left, and most likely some people that don't know what it is are against this law.

The wall to wall abortion everywhere, everyplace, all the time crowd is against the bill.

The hard truth is the bill is pretty much worthless in all practical terms. Doctors who perform abortions for a living are not what you could consider the top of the medical profession and have questionable morals and scruples to begin with considering their chosen field. It will be business as usual, only the same abortion doctors will just claim there was a valid medical reason for the abortion and the mother's life was in danger. What is there to stop them? There was no check or balance written into the bill. Only the threat of two years in jail. This is not much considering this will be almost impossible to enforce in an abortion on demand culture with immoral doctors doing the deed.

These females who decide late term they no longer wish to have the babies are not required by this bill to seek a second written opinion. The doctors are not required to sign legal affadavits after the fact along with the OB/GYN nurses that are present just in case it may be an actual life threatening emergency. This could have created some fear and deterrance from disobeying the law. There is no checks built into the legislation. Little accountability. The flaw is that it relies on the honesty and scruples of doctors who have chosen to kill infants and fetuses for a living. Therefore it is barely worth the paper it was printed on.

Text of the bill:

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s3.html

These same people who advocate for this partial birth abortion are the same sick bastards who would never allow this to happen in a puppy mill. They would scream bloody murder and inhumane cruelty. In their mind it is only alright when it is a human who wants to do away with a lifelong responsibility to another human life all because their right to an orgasm and personal irresponsibility is greater than the right of another human being to be allowed life.

EDIT: Above text of bill is a linkable copy. Better to access http://thomas.loc.gov and search for Bill Number S.3.ENR

Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.

Excellent first post, ignored by the peanut gallery. My feeling it is a personal choice that should not be regulated. No one should spew their idiology until they have been in the situation where they had to make the choice. If you don't want the crackwhore to abort, are you going to raise her kid? It's all good to dictate rules for everyone else, but some people seldom apply them to themselves.

I have a coworker that just buried his newborn daughter. She was born with a genetic defect that was not caught before birth, no test exists yet. She was born 2 months premature with severe physical defects (no eyes or ears, extra fingers and toes, and a malformed heart and lungs) She died 9 days after birth. Which was apparently unusually long for an infant with her problems. The hospital they were at had seen 5 cases like hers in the last 10 years.

He was anti-abortion along with his wife. This was going to be their 2nd child. At this point my coworker believes in prenatal testing and abortion for severe cases like his daughter. It was not work the pain and agony or cost. They sat vigil until their daughter died. He is not the same person anymore. I have yet to see his wife, but I know she hasn't worked since. Is it right to force parents to go through this if a embryo can be tested and aborted? To add insult to injury, the insurance company has been fighting the bills over the measures taken to try and preserve her life. Over $100,000 for 9 days of intensive care. They are both going to try for another, but if there is any indication of a problem like this they are aborting, if necessary in Mexico or Canada.

I understand your point Steve. I am pro-choice as well. But I still think this bill was a good thing. Regardless of your leanings, there are still too many people that use abortion in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimester as a form of birth control. Not because their lives are in danger.

I am pro-choice because in the end there can be legitimate reasons to have to have an abortion. But, as most on the left never seem to get through thier heads, there are too many people abusing thier "right" to have the proceedure. It's nice to think that "partial birth" abortion is only performed by Dr.'s in the case of a mother's life in danger. But sadly, only a naive person can actually believe this is the case. It basically becomes a matter of the parent or parents not wanting to take responsibility for thier actions.

So I ask, in these types of cases, where the fetus is viable and able to live outside the mothers womb, who speaks for the child?

I think it's strange that we've only heard the mans side of this argument so far. What I'd really like to hear is some of the woman XOC'ers thoughts on this subject. Any takers?

After listening to many points of view in the media over the last few days on this, I've come to understand this better. "Special concessions" for abortion were not included in the bill signed by Bush because, for example, a doctor could justify an abortion if the mother had a headache because it's harming the "health of the mother." It may sound dubious but do you think nobody tries to find loopholes in law these days, especially when it comes to a sensitive situation like pregnancy and abortion?

To fix all things related to abortion I offer this. Of course in a non-rape and non-life threatening situations this may not apply. Still, EVERYONE should be Pro Life AND Pro Choice. How? People, it should be Pro Life after conception and Pro Choice before conception. If you don't want to have a child, make the correct "Pro Choices" before you conceive. It's as clear as that.

In today's society, radicals in high places are convincing weak-minded individuals that we can eliminate consequences to our actions. As a result, to many are trying to evade responsibility for their actions.

Although this may sound juvenile, it’s a simple analogy. If you touch a hot stove you get burned. If you choose to have intercourse and choose to do it without protection, and have not chosen to participate in procreation, you must live with the consequences. Wheather you choose to obstain or use protection, be Pro Choice and choose wisely.

Oh great, another conspiracy theory. Why do you conservatives always think someone is out to get you?

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Although this may sound juvenile, it’s a simple analogy. If you touch a hot stove you get burned. If you choose to have intercourse and choose to do it without protection, and have not chosen to participate in procreation, you must live with the consequences. Wheather you choose to obstain or use protection, be Pro Choice and choose wisely.

Without getting into further debate about pregnancies caused by rape, incest, or fetuses with severe genetic deformities, birth control in itself is not 100%. How would you account for this? Would you object to a dose of RU-484 at the first sign of a missed period?

Relieving people of thier responsibilies for thier own actions has been a liberal mantra for as long as I can remember. There is no conspiracy theory, it is the simple truth. :rolleyes:

To a brain washed conservative like yourself, of course you feel it's the "Gospel Truth". When you make a baseless, blanket statement like Democrates relieving people of their responsibilities, what exactly do you mean? Is it because Democrates believe in more government regulation than Republicans? If it is, deregulation doesn't have a very good track record here in the U.S. as of lately. The airline industry, state electric/power grids, and the self-regulation of the stock market are prime examples of "Big Business" failing to police themselves.

Sean, there is no greater truer statement about the Democratic party than the one MB stated. Conservatives are for the individual, Democrats are for the masses, especially whichever mass is screaming the loudest at the time. Deomocrats lump you into a group, label you, then legislate you as a group fully dependent upon what the DNC expects to gain from said group.
Democrats are for taking away individual rights. They are anti-rich. They are anti-religion. They are anti-capitalism. They come up with great programs like Social Security and food stamps to keep their poorer groups in check so that these poorer groups may vote Democratic the next time through.

Brainwashed? All I ever hear from liberals is how someone is a victim. They are a victim of thier environment, they are a victim of thier upbringing, a victim of thier race, a victim of economic inequality, a victim of the rich, a victim of the more popular kids in school. Lets stop grading because we dont want to victimize dumber kids, lets ban dodgeball so we dont victimize weaker kids, lets eliminate keeping score in sports events so we dont victimize the losing team.

Liberals want to create a world where no person has the capacity to do anything for themselves.

The liberals give minorities the crumbs off thier plates and somehow convince them that conservatives want to starve them. When all the conservative wants to do is teach them how to make thier own bread. The libs would never teach them that, because then they wouldnt need the crumbs. Liberals have playing the victim down pat. Its always blame blame blame, but they never come up with a solution themselves. Their solution is to blame some more, give them just enough to survive for a short period. This makes it so they will need them again. The modern day massa.

Yeah, the conservatives want to teach them how to make bread, but far be it for the conservatives to give them the tools to make a roll which will eventually enable them to make a cake. Gotta love funding cuts.

Nothing has changed. The Democrats are still using them like they were before the civil war. The just have them convinced they aren't now.

No, MBFlyerfan is on the right track. I would actually say that in general, it's not a conspiracy theory by the "Dems" or the "left" or the "liberals," it's actually their IDIOLOGY! You just don't understand that this IDIOLOGY is just wrong. I’m sure that most liberals’ ideologies are meant for the well being of the country. They just don't know it's wrong. The same can be said for very few certain viewpoints from the extreme right.

If the support for say, Gov. Dean for instance, results in him getting in the White House, you could start to see a chain reaction for the next 30 to 50 years where America becoms a socialist country, bordering on communism, and Russia becomes the largest democracy in the world. I'm not kidding either.

That holds about as much water as someone saying that Bush is starting a chain reaction where America becomes a secretive totalitarian government that gives no rights to the individual.

Ah, the beauty of elections...you don't like 'em, boot 'em. Just ask Ford, Carter, and Bush I.

You are correct that the Democrats want to instill socialism in America. The party has been taken over by the extreme left fringe. Many are hard socialists and some outright communists who never admit to that fact.

The sad thing is the Republicans have shifted somewhat left and wish to expand government entitlements which is basically a lite form of socialism.

You are somewhat wrong about Russia. They have been becoming increasingly less Democratic under Putin.

Wow, this sounds vaguely like a thread from a few months ago...aren't there other, more HILARIOUS things we could talk about?