Dubya signs anti-abortion bill

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Lincoln
And I suppose that there is no such thing as a corrupt doctor. What draws "doctors" into this lucrative field? Could it be the money???

They just like to kill and eat babies.

[Lincoln]

Yes, it is so funny isn't it. The Nazis laughed when they dehumanized the Jews too. What a joke hu?

[SpencerH]

From ACOG's website (my bold)

ACOG's Statement of Policy explains why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)."

ACOG opposed the law based upon a philosophical concept only. As has been stated, the problem is that health is defined so broadly by the supremes to make any law including an out for health reasons unusable.

The facts are that it has been used to relieve women of the 'burden' of pregnancy in the second trimester. AFAIK there are no examples of another use. Abortions are easily available in this country in the first trimester. Why do you think they wait to the second trimester?

[Sava]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Ewwwww. Good come back.

You ever think of running for office?

you should read on, I backed up my assertion that he was wrong...

anyways, Lincoln has spammed with his usual anti-choice garbage, I'm done here... btw Lincoln, my mom had an abortion, she has no regrets.



Ming: I didn't bash Bush... name one thing bad I said about Bush in this thread... this is about the issue. There's nothing bashing Bush in the thread title. This bill is anti-abortion (it's hardly pro-abortion), and Dubya signed it. And I would express my pro-choice opinions against a Democrat who is anti-choice.

[Spiffor]

This bill had the potential to be good, if there was an exception clause for the health of the mother. It seems indeed absurd and "utterly ghoulish" (as Stefu puts it) to require a late-pregnancy fetus to be killed with such a method, when the health of the mother is not at stake.

But this bill sucks because there is no exception clause for health reasons. I trust Sava that the practice has been mostly used in case of grave health problems. In order to score cheap political points, Bush wholly bans a practice that has sometimes (very rarely) a usefulness and saves lives

[Imran Siddiqui]

In order to score cheap political points, Bush wholly bans a practice that has sometimes (very rarely) a usefulness and saves lives

You do know that Congress writes up laws, right?

From all I've read intact D&X isn't used to save lives at all (other practices are used in those cases). The Supreme Court requires an exemption for health of mother, however, just in case it is read overbroad.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not an "inhumane" form of abortion. Read up on the differences between D&X and D&E abortions. D&X (so called "partial birth") procedures are only done when their is a health risk to the mother of doing the internal procedure.

Consider this. At this point of time, the unborn child is viable. Even if the life of the mother were at risk from a continued pregnancy, we could deliver the baby through an emergency c-section, saving both the mother and child. There is no moral conflict between the needs of the mother and the needs of the child.

Now, the only purpose of a partial birth abortion is to kill a baby, and not to protect the 'health' of the mother. If it were all about health, we would be seeing emergency c-sections.

Also, in order to do a partial birth abortion, they must pull the child almost entirely out of the womb, before they puncture the skull of the child and vacuum out the brains.

We do not need to permit partial birth abortions.

Kudos to Bush for passing a bill vetoed by Clinton.
Why vote for anyone else?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why vote for anyone else?

To get a competent president that isn't prone to 'collateral damage' tens of thousands?

[Lincoln]

Please show one example where a partial birth abortion saved even one life. On the other hand, I can show where it destroyed thousands of them. And the "cheap political points" he scored will save the lives of children who have no say in this debate at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you are going by numbers, that's not a favourable comparison to the number of abortions here in the US.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You do know that Congress writes up laws, right?

And I guess it has nothing to do with the next and (other future) election that a Republican controlled Congress writes a bill that fits the usual Republican electorate so well? Especially at a time when the Republican electorate is having doubts on the ability of the GOP's chimp champ?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Yes, it is so funny isn't it. The Nazis laughed when they dehumanized the Jews too. What a joke hu?

Who said anything about dehumanizing? I'm all for canabalism.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If you are going by numbers, that's not a favourable comparison to the number of abortions here in the US.

Of Partial Birth Abortions? Bring them figures on

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I guess it has nothing to do with the next and (other future) election that a Republican controlled Congress writes a bill that fits the usual Republican electorate so well?

The bill has passed by WIDE margins during the Clinton and now the Bush years. Even if Congress was Democrat controlled this bill would have passed very easily. Most Democrats dislike partial birth abortions as well.

[Jac de Molay]

Consider this. At this point of time, the unborn child is viable. Even if the life of the mother were at risk from a continued pregnancy, we could deliver the baby through an emergency c-section, saving both the mother and child. There is no moral conflict between the needs of the mother and the needs of the child.

What if she doesn't want a c-section? So you wanna force a woman to undergo C-section in second and third trimester, thus putting her life at risk from surgical complication? It always amazes me the lengths to which people go to tell someone what should be done with their body.

Please show one example where a partial birth abortion saved even one life. On the other hand, I can show where it destroyed thousands of them.

Yeah, you go right ahead and show us how partial-birth abortions, which number ~2000 a year, have destroyed thousands of lives.

And the decision goes just beyond life-saving situations, What if the women is on chemo? What if the fetus is severely damaged because of assault?

And once and for all

QUIT CALLING IT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION