No suprise to anyone that Bush was going to sign this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-05-bush-abortion_x.htm

But we all know this is really just another salvo at Roe vs Wade. What I don't understand is if the Republicans were so sure of themselves here, and knew this legislation was going to be a slam-dunk, why not include the provision "except to protect the health of the mother" or if the fetus in question has serious aliments? It's not like this kind of abortion is common, it happens to be very rare, performed only 0.5% of the time.

http://www.crlp.org/pr_98_1210abstats.html

Anything to appease the Christian Coalition, right? I wonder how many millions will be spent on defending/appealing this law? I personally don't feel that abortion should be used as a means of birth control, but if birth control was accepted by more people (i.e Catholic Church), wouldn't the number of abortions drop? Isn't better to stop life from starting rather than to kill it midstream?

All I can say is if you were sick of hearing about this subject before, just you wait, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Wow, I can't think of anything I'd rather read about on an Xterra board, please tell me more :rolleyes:

Having lived in Wichita KS during "The Summer of Mercy" in 1991, this is a subject I don't touch with a ten meter cattle prod.

I hear they use those for abortions now...

Why not? You claim to be a liberal and a Christian... I would love to hear you try to spin this.

BTW, is this headed anywhere but the ALR?

Ok, you asked...

Yes I am a liberal, but I'm against abortion in all cases except rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

And that's all I'm saying on the subject...unless of course, you provoke me.

Wow, we could have a huge talk about that and I bet you change your mind to be completely against it... But I won't bother the rest of the XOC family with that. However, since you admitted that, I'll admit that I'm a conservative, but against the death penalty. You know, don't want you to feel totally alone with your admitting stuff.

ok, well, one last comment...then we won't bother the kind people of this board...

Yeah, it was my abortion stance that changed my mind on the death penalty. If I could be against one form of killing, how could I be for the other? So, anti-death penalty here too!

But of course, that's what makes me a liberal. HAHA

Gee, I'm a fiscal conservative, bordering on radical, but I believe in abortions for stupid would-be parents and sterilization of those who pull "Darwin Award" like stunts.

The ALR... Are we there yet?

You know, if the subject matter is controversial and people are expressing opinions without making personal attacks and using profanity it is still Club House material. I think, as adults, we should be able to keep most of these political and social topics out of the ALR.

You smell like rotting cheese, you jackass . . .

To the ALR we go, to the ALR we go, hi-ho the derry-oh, to the ALR we go . . .

I hope abortion is done away with, I hold stock with a coathanger manufacture.

*yawn*

Duh! Of course he signed it. He has supported it since the beginning of the bill. :rolleyes:

Don't be an idiot. This has nothing to do with RVW. It has to do with abolishing a worthless brutal procedure that has no medical necessity. The guy that came up with the procedure testified in the hearings that there is no reason to use it. The law does allow for it to be used if the mother is going to die, and there is no other way to help her, just in case. The bit the Dems wanted would have made the law worthless, because pregnancy is always a risk to a woman's health.

Blah, Blah, Blah. This law is a good law. I believe in a woman's right to choose. This procedure has no place in that though. It is disgusting, and as everyone in the hearings testified, there is no real reason that it has to be done.

They basically shove forceps up inside the woman, and turn the baby around so that it is coming out feet first. This part of the procedure is quite dangerous to the woman's health. Once they pull the legs out, they stop when the head is just barely still in there. They then take scissors, poke a hole in the back of the baby's head, and suck it's brains out to kill it.

You know Brent, if you don't care about an issue as big as this one you are an idiot. I understand why don't care about things like the Peterson or Bryant case, but come on. This is an important issue. I guess your real just post whoring as usual.

Hey, I think your lover is calling you on another thread, Troll.


"I'm gonna wuv you till yo' sterile."

OH BABY!

Let's not make this a Dems/Repug's issue. I'm a Democrat, and I'm against abortion. What do you say to me?

As someone who just recently dealt with the whole abortion issue, I am completely pro choice... I do not agree with crackwhores being impregnated and using this as a means of birth control, but I also do not agree with said crackwhore having another crack baby... However, I had never heard of this practice requiring a dr. to "puncture the fetus' skull"... this is just sick... and what is the point? If you cannot decide to have this done in the first trimester, then you need to have the kid and put it up for adoption... my thoughts on this matter...

p.s. why the hell is this here with a bunch of men commenting on it? Doesn't this belong on www.knittingforums.com ?

Your link doesn't work.

To a lot of people, it doesn't matter if it's a good law... if a law goes down that limits abortion options, it's a loss for the pro-choicers.

It's just like gun control... a given control law may make sense - but passing it is a win for the anti gun group and a loss for the pro gun group.

Personally, I'm at the other end of the spectrum from WilMac... I'm a pro-choice conservative Christian (How is that possible, you ask? My thoughts: It's not the US Govt's business, it's not MY business, and it's not YOUR business... it's the pregnant lady's business and God's business... so let the two of THEM sort it out).

Didn't want to post on this topic again, but that was some funny shit.

You actually could compare this law very well to gun laws.

Pro-choice groups will say this is chipping away at Roe v. Wade. Some conservatives will say it's not. Other conservatives will say yes, it is - they want abortion completely gone.

Gun-rights groups will say automatic weapon bans are the first step toward banning all guns. Some liberals will say it's not. Other liberals will say yes, it is - they want guns completely gone.

Regardless...

It sure didn\'t take long to block

Congrats! You're the first person to start with the name calling. If you don't think this is just another stepping stone to altimately reverse Wade vs Roe, you're an even bigger idiot.

Quote:

It has to do with abolishing a worthless brutal procedure that has no medical necessity.

Then why do most doctors concider this type of an abortion medically accepted?

"Partial-birth abortion" is a term concocted by the National Right to Life Committee and other anti-abortion lobbying groups. It is not a medical term, nor does it refer to an actual medical procedure."

Quote:

The law does allow for it to be used if the mother is going to die, and there is no other way to help her, just in case. The bit the Dems wanted would have made the law worthless, because pregnancy is always a risk to a woman's health.

No, exemtion if the mother's health is at risk, nor if the fetus is severly abnormal is not part of the ban. Read it again.

Quote:

Blah, Blah, Blah. This law is a good law. I believe in a woman's right to choose. This procedure has no place in that though. It is disgusting, and as everyone in the hearings testified, there is no real reason that it has to be done.

Who's everybody? Those aligned with the Christian right? How about some names?

Quote:

They basically shove forceps up inside the woman, and turn the baby around so that it is coming out feet first. This part of the procedure is quite dangerous to the woman's health. Once they pull the legs out, they stop when the head is just barely still in there. They then take scissors, poke a hole in the back of the baby's head, and suck it's brains out to kill it.

Pro-life propaganda, plain and simple. In 1996, only 0.5% of these D&X procedures were performed, thats only 650 of the 1.37 million abortions that were performed. I wish I had the stats, but I wonder out of those 650, how many were performed on brain dead fetuses or if the mothers life was at risk? I highly doubt that most were performed as a means of birth control. If the fetus is brain dead, and the mothers health is at stake, what would you do?

"Anti-choice legislators promoted bans they publicly claim to be about "D&X" but the laws are vague, never defining the procedure. Abortion opponents latched onto graphic and misleading imagery of "D&X" abortions in a massive effort to con the public into supporting an abortion ban."

I tell you what, I will read the new law tonight and see what it says. I called you an idiot to help get this moved to the ALR were it belongs.

Back to the RVW bit. I did see a quote from some Republican saying that getting rid of abortion completely is not really an option. Our society would not allow it.

Here is the bit that defines the illegal procedure. It is pretty plain to me that they are talking about the PBA here.

"a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus"

I am not a big fan of abortion. When I was younger I was actually pro-choice. As I approached my late 20's I realized abortion was wrong. Especially this "partial birth" abortion. It is absolutely sick and is without a doubt murder of an innocent life. It is infanticide.

Abortion is overly abused by too many lazy sluts. Madonna is a perfect example. She has had 11 documented abortions and possibly more. She even had one after the birth of her first child. This low class slut also tries to portray herself as a "spiritual" person by claiming to study Kabbalah.

The abortion issue is also a sham. Men have absolutely no rights. If the father wishes to keep the child and raise it himself he has absolutely no say in the matter. However in the reverse, if the father does not wish to have the child and the mother does than that man is forced to support the child for 18 years. This is in no way equitable. A father should have some rights or say in the issue of aborting his offspring.

The whole issue of abortion should not and should never have been a federal issue. This is without a doubt a matter for the individual states to decide. It's just one of many examples of a liberal federal judiciary ignoring the constitution.

EDIT: It is not just the Christian right who is against "partial birth" abortion. Everyone with any sense of morality and right and wrong is also against it.

Well that wasn't nice. Why does it have to go to the ALR if the issue is debated rationally and like adults?

Quote:

Back to the RVW bit. I did see a quote from some Republican saying that getting rid of abortion completely is not really an option. Our society would not allow it.

That would be President Bush that said that.

I hope you're not equating a D&X with the average abortion procedure. D&X procedures (i.e Pro-Life propaganda "Partial Birth Abortions") are normally performed in the rare instances of:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

"1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.

2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:

She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.

There are mental or physical health problems.

The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:

The fetus is dead.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.

The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus."

Quote:

The whole issue of abortion should not and should never have been a federal issue. This is without a doubt a matter for the individual states to decide. It's just one of many examples of a liberal federal judiciary ignoring the constitution.

Then why do conservatives in the Federal government keep making this a government issue?

Quote:

EDIT: It is not just the Christian right who is against "partial birth" abortion. Everyone with any sense of morality and right and wrong is also against it.

Maybe if you knew something about the D&X procedure and why it's performed, and didn't take your cues from the Christian Coalition, you know what you were actually talking about here.

That's hard to avoid since it's a huge topic that Republicans and Democrats debate on all the time. Democrats are for it while Republicans are against it. You can still vote democrat or republican and still be against a few issues of your party. You just not as far left or right as your party would like you to be.

You are just posting pure pro-abortion propaganda. The stuff you posted is what was supposed to be the original intent of the so-called "partial birth" abortions. We all know the system is totally abused by women who just don't want the babies anymore.

There was a time when a woman could only get an abortion in the first trimester. Now they can get them any time right into the 9th month. The doctors that perform abortions are not moral people. They will claim anything to justify their collecting a payday in order to perform the abortion. That's the reality of the situation today.

Late term abortions are rarely performed due to health considerations regardless of how you try to spin it. They are performed because the women don't want the babies.

Because it is too late. Liberal radicals on the Supreme Court already made it a federal issue with Roe vs Wade. You've got to be kidding with that question right?

What is there to know. The situation is extremely abused by corrupt doctors. I've already stated these types of abortions are a sham and are rarely performed because of any type of health considerations.

Abortion doctors make their money by performing abortions. The more abortions they perform the more money they make. Is that so hard for you to figure out? These people are deviod of any morality and are the scum of the earth.

Some days, it seems like a good idea for women to have abortions well into the 160th trimester . . .

I'm not trying to spin anything here. I'm just getting my information from Google searches just like you are. What I think you're forgetting here is it takes two to tango. You can't put all the blame on the woman.

Quote:

Abortion doctors make their money by performing abortions. The more abortions they perform the more money they make. Is that so hard for you to figure out? These people are deviod of any morality and are the scum of the earth.

And the pro-life wacko's that bomb abortion clinics and shoot the Doctors and nurses are any better? How about this scenario, birth control is more accepted and praticed by all factions in the U.S. Wouldn't the need for abortions must then drop dramatically as well?

If you really think the people of this nation, conserative and liberal alike, will someday all of a sudden decide on a life of abstinence instead of giving in to the innate and uncontrollable urge to copulate, you then are truly living in fantasy land.

How many pro-life whacko's have bombed abortion clinics? How many have killed people? The number is actually very small. A tiny handful. That's more of your "metrosexual" pro-abortion propaganda. How many babies have perished due to abortions in the last 30 years. Over 40 million. An entire generation and a half almost wiped out. Most women who get abortions are white females.

I don't know why you bring contraception into the argument. The whole proliferation of abortion is due to the lack of contraception use. The whole abortion issue is wholely connected to responsiblity. In most cases irresponsility. Remember that word...RESPONSIBILITY. If people were more responsible than there would be less abortions. But then again the whole idea of personal responsiblity is anathema to the left wing establishment.

No one is asking anyone to abstain from sex. Again the issue of responsibility comes into play.

The urge to have to have sex is innate but it is not uncontrollable. This ridiculous train of thought would be a perfect defense for rape as you seem to portray the sexual urge.

With sexual conduct comes responsibility for your actions. Abortion should not be used as a method of birth control. That is what it has become in our country. It is that way because people like you do not understand responsibility for individaul actions.

If you feel the right of individuals to have sex is greater than the right to live of the life that the sexual act creates than you lack any understanding of individual responsiblity. It also indicates a clear amorality and a touch of evil.

I understand full well the concept of responsibilitiy. If I didn't, I wouldn't have made it this far in life. What an asinine remark to make. Are you saying you're a more responsible person then me? That's a laugh, not only have you no children or wife of your own (that you've indicated at least), the yarns you've spun over the past year pertaining to your so called life proves otherwise. You really need to get over yourself old man.

Quote:

If you feel the right of individuals to have sex is greater than the right to live of the life that the sexual act creates than you lack any understanding of individual responsiblity. It also indicates a clear amorality and a touch of evil.

That's not what I meant and you know it. I also consider myself a very moral person, when have I ever shown otherwise? But then again, this type of rhetoric is your typical response when you lack the ability to rebut in an intelligent way. All you want to do is get a rise out of me, keep trying. When you stop with false accusations and assumptions, I'll debate the issue with you further if you'd like.

You people on the left are something else. Whenever backed into a corner or shown how your arguments and theories hold no water you always start in with name calling or attempts at personal attacks.

I never made any remarks as to who is more of a responsible person. My remarks were meant to indicate who understands the principles of personal responsibility more. To those of you on the left personal responsibility is a foreign concept. It is something only "right wing" people are concerned about.

I think I have been cordial here. Am I an old man? Not yet. I'm only maybe two or three years older than you. Do you consider yourself an old man?. Why don't I have kids? Because I am responsible. I have never had a desire to be a parent and have always been responsible enough to take precautions. However if I were presented with the prospect I certainly would not run to an abortionist in order to make an inconvenience go away. I would do the right thing.

I don't know what "yarns" you are talking about but you are more than welcome to bring anything up and question it if you feel it necessary. You really need to get over the fact that you are an amoral man and lack the courage to see yourself and your convictions for what they truly are.

For a man who claims to love his own son so much you are more than happy to have the same little similar faces murdered and destroyed before even being allowed to breathe their first breath. How can you truly look at his face and know millions just like that are murdered and destroyed every year... all because of like minded people as yourself.

A strange sense of irony. I think I would make a better father than you.

First, you are wrong on almost every thing you stated here. Tell us all why you are so in favor of abortion. Yeah, this whole thing is concept dreamed up by the Right Wing Conspirators.

Second, find me the stats of the number of women actually saved by having an abortion from 1970 until now. In other words you pro-baby killers, show me the fact sheet on the number of women who were on the verge of death until they had an abortion, then sprang to life.

Third, you are for coathangers but against guns. Why? Do they both not get used in the murder of humans?

Fourth, why didn't you abort your baby?

This is my first post---and it is a very personal one.
My 20 year old sister just recently became pregnant. She works 40 hrs a week, minimum wage as a social worker w/out medical insurance benefits. And she lives with who I consider to be a dead beat boyfriend. She was on the depo-shot but got pregnant anyway because she was taking numerous medications, including antiobiotics. She did not realize & her doctors neglected to inform her that this could happen. So to answer your big question...NO she did not choose to have an abortion. She chose to keep the baby. She has gone on medicaid & other federal programs to help cover the cost of medical care & the living expenses that come with raising a child when you are barely an adult yourself. Before this she had decided that she didn't want to have kids. But told me that she could not have an abortion just because she made a mistake. The night she told me I cried for her & her lost young adulthood & freedom. I tried to persuade her to consider abortion & adoption, but she is stubborn and always knows what is best for herself. So I dropped it & decided to be happy for her & her coming addition.
Unfortunately a week ago she started bleeding & when she went to the ER they were unable to find a heart beat. She was sent home with a heavy heart & medication to make her uterous contract to expel the fetus and placenta. Instead she just lost a large amount of blood and later this week will need to have a D&X.

This post is not necessarily about abortion but the many, many, many different emotions a female & her partner go thru when this happens. Real life is not about democrats & republicans. It is about what choice you make. And that is one of the things that make us human...reason & thought. Those of you that think that the decision is black or white are wrong. When you have to make that decision or watch someone go thru it, the ideas of pro-choice and pro-life are not a factor. I have seen friends who were pro-life go thru a pregnancy scare & totally rethink their stance. I think that only then can you make a well informed decision as to what side of the fence you are on with this issue.

You just described yourself and most radical rightwingers to a "T".

Quote:

I never made any remarks as to who is more of a responsible person. My remarks were meant to indicate who understands the principles of personal responsibility more. To those of you on the left personal responsibility is a foreign concept. It is something only "right wing" people are concerned about.

Another one of your personal views that holds no water. Again, your comments towards me pertaining to not knowing the concept of responsibility was totally incongruous and without merit.

Quote:

I think I have been cordial here. Am I an old man? Not yet. I'm only maybe two or three years older than you. Do you consider yourself an old man?. Why don't I have kids? Because I am responsible. I have never had a desire to be a parent and have always been responsible enough to take precautions. However if I were presented with the prospect I certainly would not run to an abortionist in order to make an inconvenience go away. I would do the right thing.

Again, you have lost sight of the original debate here, and you continue to catagorize a common 1st term abortion to a D&X. What part of 0.5% of all the abortions performed in this country do you not understand? Focus Madman, focus.

Quote:

I don't know what "yarns" you are talking about but you are more than welcome to bring anything up and question it if you feel it necessary. You really need to get over the fact that you are an amoral man and lack the courage to see yourself and your convictions for what they truly are.

Um...let's see, pissing into gas tanks comes to mind. What you really need to do is get over the fact that you cannot debate an issue without turning it to an personal attack. Everything to you is a moral issue, conspiracy theory or a "Left vs Right" crusade. Perhaps if you thought more for yourself and less as a collective of the right wing, you might actually have something worth while to present to the argument.

Quote:

For a man who claims to love his own son so much you are more than happy to have the same little similar faces murdered and destroyed before even being allowed to breathe their first breath. How can you truly look at his face and know millions just like that are murdered and destroyed every year... all because of like minded people as yourself.

Yet again you have fallen off the beaten path of this discussion, and yet once more try to lump the issue at hand into general concepts and turn it into a witch hunt. Yes I do love my son, and he was planned (resonsibility right?). I also consider myself very lucky he was born a happy and healthy baby. But on the other side of the coin, I can also understand why others may have the need to have a D&X procedure performed on a brain dead fetus or if the mothers health is at stake. You just don't get it do you, D&X procedures are not only extremly rare, but are only performed under certain strict conditions. Save your Right to Life propaganda for the idiots who don't know any better.

Quote:

A strange sense of irony. I think I would make a better father than you.

Possibly the most idiotic statement you have ever made. We should all be thankful your gene pool hasn't delineated any further than it has. If anything, you would be the perfect poster child for birth control.

I am pro-choice. But I agree with C. Everett Coop when he says that there is no medical reason to perform a D&X. I also do not agree that with the left-wing conspiracy theorists that this is a prelude to an all-out attack on RvW. Banning the Sticking of scissors in the back of the brain of a viable fetus and then sucking its brain out does not seem unreasonable to me.

Even if it does just prevent 650 abortions a year.

Ok... I have a question for you then... say the pill doesn't work? A woman is taking the pill regularly, but lo and behold, one day becomes pregnant? It is not 100% effective, y'know... is it fair for her, just because she was sexually active, to have to have a child, quit school, be shunned from her family, and go on welfare one day (maybe a bit extreme)? Personally, I think that's crap... Things happen... people make mistakes... would it be better for a child to be brought into the world that isn't wanted? Would it be better for said child to wind up in the dumpster just outside of the hospital? I love my girlfriend, but I know that we are probably not going to be together the rest of our lives. I already have a daughter from a previous divorce, and I hate the fact that she can't have both parents all the time... I wouldn't wish that on any other child...

Wrong according to who, you? Prove my statements wrong. Again for the record, I never stated I was for abortion being used purely as a means of birth control. You Pro-Lifers just can't make that distinction can you?

Quote:

Second, find me the stats of the number of women actually saved by having an abortion from 1970 until now. In other words you pro-baby killers, show me the fact sheet on the number of women who were on the verge of death until they had an abortion, then sprang to life.

How about you proving your own argument for a change. Go ahead and Google away, I'll wait.

Quote:

Third, you are for coathangers but against guns. Why? Do they both not get used in the murder of humans?

I don't believe the use of coat hangers is a viable medical procedure used by doctors when performing abortions. I see your programing by the religious right is totally blinding your rational thought pattern. Wrap your head around this one skippy: Why is it not alright to end a pregnacy when the fetus is brain dead, but it's acceptable to kill an adult in a gas chamber? Killing is still a form of murder, right?

Quote:

Fourth, why didn't you abort your baby?

I bet your the type of person who would scream at young distraught mothers on their way to the local abortion clinic from behind the barricades holding up a picture of a bloody fetus for children to see , aren't you? Why would I want to have aborted my planned and healty son?

I haven't lost sight of anything. We are discussing "partial birth" abortions. Since when is this a first term abortion? It is you who are turning things around as you usually do.

Stop using the bullshit PC term of D&X. These dilation and extraction abortions are murder. Shoving a peice of metal through the head of a healthy infant and sucking his guts out with a vacuum does not deserve a touchy feely name like a D&X procedure. You say that lightly almost like it was something benign like a blood pressure check or something.

And yes... most of the partial birth abortions performed in the US are done to healthy babies that could survive outside the womb by themselves. Most are not performed for any medical reasons.

The fact is you abortion people make every excuse in the world to make it OK for a woman to have an abortion right up to the moment of natural birth. After all... it's her body until the baby is out right? She can do whatever she wants....

It's too bad your mother didn't have a big pair of scissors and a suction vacuum handy. There would be just that much less amorality and blind leftism in the world today.

First of all...... If you want to avoid having a child that much.... and your only method of contraception is your reliance on your girlfriend taking her pill everyday at the same time.... you are a fool. You don't want kids... you put on a bag, regardless of what she says. That is being responsible.

Secondly... Why do all you people seem to feel that every woman who has a child outside marriage goes on welfare? What happened to the father? No responsibility in the situation or are you forgetting him for the sake of your argument?

I seem to recall you liberals were very successful at getting laws passed in all 50 states regarding deadbeat dads. There is even some federal regulations if the guy skips over state lines. He pays or goes to jail. Let me get this straight.... all these women you are talking about are getting both welfare and child support from the males? Nice racket huh?

The women have all the rights with these issues. If you wanted to keep the baby and your girlfriend wanted to abort.... you don't have a damn right or say in anything.

Like I said...not going to get involved. This issue just goes around and around and never finds a viable solution.

(washes his hands of it)

Pass me the hand towel when you are done.

Damn it. Why does this have to turn into an overall abortion debate? What do you all think about the new law? It doesn't make all abortions illegal, and as Sean said the President doesn't think that our society will accept abortions being illegal, so they probably never will be.

This procedure, according to what I have seen testified to, is not a necessary medical practice. It is dangerous to the women who have it performed on them, and it is just brutal as hell to the baby. BTW, two polls that I have seen show that 70% and 62% of the country support this new law.

Yeah... That's right. It shouldn't be an overall abortion debate. The left however views this bill as the first hurdle to eliminate abortion in America.

I think the bill is great. Long overdue. This partial birth shit is an infamnia.

I don't put much faith in polls but this one claims 84% of America agrees with me.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031106.asp

Run Sean run...You little curr. Are you to afraid to attempt to back up your claims and beliefs?

You said that you didn't kill your son because he was healthy and wanted. So, you are in favor of baby killing for purely birth control reasons. You also favor killing unwanted babies. You probably really enjoy killing babies who may be born retarded.

The numbers often used by pro-abortionists to back their claims are vast fabrications mostly made up by the pro-abortion lobby as admitted by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of NARAL. The real numbers of deaths before 1973 are shockingly different. Thirty-nine women died of illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v Wade. Those are thirty-nine tragedies along with their thirty-nine children who also died because of abortion's violence. The true reason the deaths have decreased from abortion isn't legalization, it was the widespread introduction of antibiotics into medicine that saved the lives of women who would have otherwise died of botched abortions. In fact, the main forms of abortions have changed very little since the middle of this century! The only thing that legalizing abortion did was to give abortionists the right to hang their shingle on the front door and stop using the back alley!
Mothers deserve better answers than the death of their children through the violence of abortion, legal or illegal. Help us support the work of the more than 3,000 mother helping centers committed to providing real life affirming options for these women and their families.

Concerning rape: We don't cure illness by killing the patient. Aborting a child with a disability or illness is the height of prejudice. When a family learns that the child they are expecting may have a special need, that family needs support and good solid medical information -- not the death of their most fragile member. Society must flee this attitude that uses arbitrary yard sticks to measure peoples worth.
When a woman has been raped or a victim of incest, she has been the victim of a terrifying act of violence of which she is a true victim. Tragically, we are some times faced with a second victim of this great crime committed by the rapist, a baby. While pregnancy is extremely rare from rape, it can happen. The cruelest thing that can happen to the women in question is to now be pitted against her child, who is the second victim. In several studies done across America, women who were encouraged to use abortion in such circumstances felt that they had been put through a second act of violence, the violence and pain of the mechanical rape of abortion. Worse than that, they stated feelings of being made into the victimizer of their own child. they felt that their baby had paid with his/her life for the crime of the rapist.
Meanwhile, mothers who found support to carry their children to term, whether they opted for adoption or kept their babies, felt that they'd turned something horrible into something life-giving. The key here is support for both victims, mother and child.

Have you taken your med's today? Not every abortion performed is a D&X. Why can't you make this distinction?

Quote:

Stop using the bullshit PC term of D&X. These dilation and extraction abortions are murder. Shoving a peice of metal through the head of a healthy infant and sucking his guts out with a vacuum does not deserve a touchy feely name like a D&X procedure. You say that lightly almost like it was something benign like a blood pressure check or something.

No I won't stop calling the procedure a D&X, it is the proper name that Doctors decribe the medical procedure as. "Partial Birth" is a phrase coined by the Pro-lifers. How can this procedure be murder if the fetus is brain dead?

Quote:

And yes... most of the partial birth abortions performed in the US are done to healthy babies that could survive outside the womb by themselves. Most are not performed for any medical reasons.

I'm calling you out on this statement. I've shown you my evidence that an D&X is not performed for most abotions, where's your's? As a matter of fact, the idiots who crafted this new law couldn't even get it right. As it stands now, they are banning a procedure that doesn't exist:

http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/000178.html

Quote:

It's too bad your mother didn't have a big pair of scissors and a suction vacuum handy. There would be just that much less amorality and blind leftism in the world today.

The same could be said about you old man. You still sound like someone to me who was dropped at birth.

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?

For some reason, THIS has the Republicans up in arms!

Funny how Bush can raise 1.5 Million in one night at a high priced "fund raiser" yet this has the Republicans outraged.

My favorite line: WHHAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!

Yeah, and the insurance lobby and oil companies haven't purchased the Republican party.

You'll excuse me while I dance in joy.

Do your little happy dance. Your party is just the same as the rest. They all bow down to special interests that will give them money. Of course you leftists all seem to think that is not the case. Soros sounds like an idiot in that article.

Wasn't Soros convicted of insider trading less than a year ago? :rolleyes:

ADM:
-pled guilty to one of the most massive antitrust crimes and paid a $100 million fine.

-Donated to the Republican Party $1.7 Million.

Pfizer:
-currently in the middle of a lawsuit because they illegally tested their drugs on Nigerian children.

-Donated to the Republican Party $1.1 Million.

Chevron:
-fined over $300,000 dollars for 52 air quality violations between 1998 and May 2003

-Plead guilty to 65 violations of the Clean Water Act and paid $8 million in fines, for illegal discharges from the company's offshore oil and gas production platform "Grace" off the California Coast.

-Chevron has paid more than $70 million in fines, settlements, and penalties since 1980, and is a PRP for more Superfund sites than any other oil company.

-Donated to the Republican Party $875,000

Enron:
-too many crimes to list

-donated $113,800 to Bush directly, and donated $1,138,990 to the RNC

Arthur Anderson:
-Enron accounting firm

-donated $145,650 to the Bush campaign.

Vinson & Elkins:
-Enron lawyers

-Donated $202,850 to the Bush campaign.

So, Wilmac, you are justifying bad behavior with more bad behavior?

Nope, just introducing the pot to the kettle.

I believe he was just countering your "Soros convicted of insider trading less than a year ago" statement. Why can't anyone show evidence against conservatives, in this case a rebuttal, without snide comments from yourself?

Preach on, Brother Sean.

Preach on? The point is all of the parties take money from anyone who will give it to them.

Why did he feel the need to counter? It is true. So, what exactly, is he countering? Where was the rebuttal? Are you trying to say he wasnt convicted? I dont deny anything that Wilmac wrote, and Wilmac would discredit Bush and the republicans on the same merits. So just because he is against Bush it is ok? I dont get you people sometimes.

If the guy came out and said he was going to bring down the Democrat of choice, you would all be up in arms about how another rich guy is supporting Bush, and then bring up that he was found guilty of insider trading.

So, in this case, Wilmac didnt rebut anyone. :rolleyes:

Exactly my point! I was just trying to point out that just because he was involved in insider trading, that doesn't make the Republicans blameless. I was just introducing the pot to the kettle, as I said before. :rolleyes:

Because the underlying theme of your reply to me, with its rolling eyes, was that Soros was dirty and so were the Democrats for taking his money.

I was just pointing out that the Republicans are just as dirty. Kettle? Pot?

As I said, justifying bad behavior with more bad behavior. And another thing, I have never once rejoiced in the fact that Bush and the republicans are involved with the companies you mentioned. But you seemed to rejoice (dance for joy was how you said it?)in your earlier post about the dems recieving money from this guy. :rolleyes:

Ditto. I'll never allow myself to be sucked into the "Collective".

Yup! If it's ok for the Republicans, then it's ok for the Democrats.

Yet another retarded comment. You liberals always act so high and mighty about not dealing with special interests. It is quite comical really. The Dems bow down to more special interests than anyone. The recent shananigans in CA by Davis illustrated that point very well. Pot, kettle? :rolleyes:

Arrr....I be done with ye.

OK.