'Partial-birth' abortion ban upheld

[Irvine511]

i'm still waiting for the pro-lifers to come out and endorse the following:

1. gay adoption
2. comprehensive sex education
3. universal health care
4. free neo-natal care
5. free day care
6. job assistance/education/training for mothers and fathers
7. mandatory availability of maternity and paternity leave
8. financial assistance to mothers (aka, welfare)

so when all these conditions are met, maybe then we can start to discuss what it means to be pro-life and not just pro-birth.

(i also want to know why God aborts a large number of zygotes -- it seems that the female womb is a far more dangerous environment for these cellular children than any on earth)

 

[BVS]

Here's some popcorn, it will be a loooooooonnnnnngggg wait...

 

[randhail]

FYI - The New England Journal of Medicine published a couple of commentaries on the matter today - neither one of them too supportive of this ruling:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp078055

"But the greatest uncertainty of all concerns the continued viability of any right to abortion in all but imminently life-threatening situations. The federal statute makes no distinction between pre-viability and post-viability abortions and bans the D&X procedure in both situations, even in cases in which physicians believe that the alternatives are more dangerous to a woman's health. The prospect that a woman's health might be endangered by limiting access to D&X procedures is deemed insufficient to qualify as an "undue burden." Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart endorses this conclusion, stating that it is "legitimate" because "a fetus is a living organism within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb" and that "choosing not to prohibit [a brutal and inhumane procedure] will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life."

 

[martha]

FYI - The New England Journal of Medicine published a couple of commentaries on the matter today - neither one of them too supportive of this ruling:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp078055

even in cases in which physicians believe that the alternatives are more dangerous to a woman's health.

I think this says it all. Pro-choice people have been warning about this attitude for years.

It's not about the woman. It's about the baby; the woman is a vessel. That's all.

 

[shart1780]

Babies won't have the the backs of their heads cut open and their brains sucked out. What is there not to be happy about? Partial birth abortion is savage murder and any time I hear someone defend it I become very angry.

 

[Irvine511]

Babies won't have the the backs of their heads cut open and their brains sucked out. What is there not to be happy about? Partial birth abortion is savage murder and any time I hear someone defend it I become very angry.

and why do you think someone would have a late-term abortion?

 

[INDY500]

i'm still waiting for the pro-lifers to come out and endorse the following:

1. gay adoption
2. comprehensive sex education
3. universal health care
4. free neo-natal care
5. free day care
6. job assistance/education/training for mothers and fathers
7. mandatory availability of maternity and paternity leave
8. financial assistance to mothers (aka, welfare)

so when all these conditions are met, maybe then we can start to discuss what it means to be pro-life and not just pro-birth.

(i also want to know why God aborts a large number of zygotes -- it seems that the female womb is a far more dangerous environment for these cellular children than any on earth)

So let me get this straight. The choice is either:
1) unrestricted abortion up and until the moment of birth, or
2) a cradle to the grave welfare state
3) or, if you're Hillary Rodham Clinton, both

Have I got that straight?

 

[A_Wanderer]

i'm still waiting for the pro-lifers to come out and endorse the following:

1. gay adoption
2. comprehensive sex education
3. universal health care
4. free neo-natal care
5. free day care
6. job assistance/education/training for mothers and fathers
7. mandatory availability of maternity and paternity leave
8. financial assistance to mothers (aka, welfare)

so when all these conditions are met, maybe then we can start to discuss what it means to be pro-life and not just pro-birth.

(i also want to know why God aborts a large number of zygotes -- it seems that the female womb is a far more dangerous environment for these cellular children than any on earth)

No deal, I will give you abortion though.

 

[BVS]

So let me get this straight. The choice is either:
1) unrestricted abortion up and until the moment of birth, or
2) a cradle to the grave welfare state
3) or, if you're Hillary Rodham Clinton, both

Have I got that straight?

You have problems seeing gray don't you?

 

[Irvine511]

So let me get this straight. The choice is either:
1) unrestricted abortion up and until the moment of birth, or
2) a cradle to the grave welfare state
3) or, if you're Hillary Rodham Clinton, both

Have I got that straight?

INDY, the HRC jokes are so off base it's silly. she's as centrist as they come.

anyway, yes, those are the choices. if you're going to force a woman to become a Vessel Of Life and remove her right to determine when she does and does not become pregnant, if you are going to remove her ability to control her own body, then the only responsible thing to do -- since you don't want any neglected children, do you? *that* certainly isn't very pro-life -- is to give her the tools she is going to need in order to be the Vessel of which you speak.

what is irresponsible is to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, then kick her out on the street.

unless, of course, you think that babies are a punishment.

 

[Irvine511]

so ... agian, do we have any pro-lifer who's going to take my challenge?

i'll even let you get off the hook with just demanding universal health care and comprehensive sex education and free contraception.

 

[martha]

i'll even let you get off the hook with just demanding universal health care and comprehensive sex education and free contraception.

Do I hear crickets?

 

[Irvine511]

Do I hear crickets?

i guess the little sluts get what they deserve -- a screaming, crying, pooping headache for th next 18 years.

because that's what children are for. to punish women.

 

[deep]

let's be honest

sex within hetero marriage is a blessing -
a gift from God


sex outside of that
is a sin (period)

and sin has consequences.

that is why abstinence is the only thing that needs to be taught (period)

 

[Irvine511]

and in addition to abstinence, remember kids, gay sex has never ended in an abortion.

 

[deep]

but it is still a sin

and sins have consequences

 

[Irvine511]

but it is still a sin

and sins have consequences

and that baby's gonna make that non-virgin pay for the rest of her life.

 

[martha]

because that's what children are for. to punish women.

Especially if they're boy children.

 

[martha]

but it is still a sin

and sins have consequences

Like not being able to adopt the babies that need to be born with no brains and die within three days of birth because some men decided that it was more important that the women carry these babaies to term and risk their lives than abort them.

 

[INDY500]

INDY, the HRC jokes are so off base it's silly. she's as centrist as they come.

Are we talkin' about the same Hillary Clinton? The one who:

has the endorsement of N.O.W for president.

scores 100% on NARAL's pro-choice voting scale.

voted against the 2003 partial-birth abortion bill.

as first lady approved of her husband's vetoing of earlier partial-birth abortion bills.

as first lady headed the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. Which eventually came up with a plan so thick with mandates and bureaucracy that even the Democratically controlled Congress wouldn't touch it.
HillaryCare.

What political prism do you have to look through to see Hillary Rodham Clinton as a centrist on abortion or on universal healthcare?

 

[INDY500]

Do I hear crickets?

Yes, Buddy Holly & the Crickets singing:

"Maybe, baby,
I'll have you."

 

[martha]

Yes, Buddy Holly & the Crickets singing:

"Maybe, baby,
I'll have you."

But I sure don't hear you answering the real questions Irvine asked. Your focus on Hilary is a great way to avoid the issue.

 

[Irvine511]

What political prism do you have to look through to see Hillary Rodham Clinton as a centrist on abortion or on universal healthcare?

firstly, i see pro-choice and wanting to work towards universal health care as centrist positions.

you made her out to be a socialist. and if you looked at Hillary's recent speeches on abortion -- where she calles them a "sad, even tragic choice" -- as a very distinct departure from the mantra one typically associates with NOW or NARAL.

but make your arguments about Hillary and not on the circumstances that create unwanted pregnancies or the reasons why women often turn to abortion.

 

[Irvine511]

but it is still a sin

and sins have consequences

which brings us to the real question: would you abort a gay baby?

commit a sin, but only to prevent further sin.

 

[INDY500]

but make your arguments about Hillary and not on the circumstances that create unwanted pregnancies or the reasons why women often turn to abortion.

It's been interesting, but I'll end where I started. Answering a question put to me.
Only 1 in 5 women -- women -- believe partial-birth abortion should be legal. So maybe this isn't a women's rights issue after all.

Maybe this is just the right, the sensible, thing to do.

 

[martha]

It's been interesting, but I'll end where I started.

Wow. You're "ending" without addressing major questions. That's really very interesting. It is indeed all about control with you then?

 

[deep]

which brings us to the real question: would you abort a gay baby?

commit a sin, but only to prevent further sin.

is it a sin to be gay?

it is only a sin to have sex outside of hetero marriage

people who are not married
are not entitled to have intimate relations

it is that simple
just don't sin (period)

 

[diamond]

the gay baby would attend bible camp.

 

[Irvine511]

It's been interesting, but I'll end where I started. Answering a question put to me.
Only 1 in 5 women -- women -- believe partial-birth abortion should be legal. So maybe this isn't a women's rights issue after all.

Maybe this is just the right, the sensible, thing to do.

and what do those women think when you attach phrases like "for the life and health of the mother?"

it really doesn't matter what polls say, either. what matters is that women should have the right to choose. as i've stated, and as most pro-choice people believe, abortion should be legal during the first trimester, and then it gets quite dicey after that. however, there are many legitimate medical reasons for keeping late term abortion legal.

and so it should remain.

as the gun thread keeps telling us, making something illegal won't stop it.

what *will* stop it is the removal of such conditions that lead to it.

 

[Irvine511]

the gay baby would attend bible camp.

with all the other gay babies!



hot hook ups at Bible camp!