Partial Birth Abortion Ban is Constitutional.

One for LIFE!

4-18-2007 12:50 PM

I am confident you each will be willing to give homes to at least one "vegetative state" infant for the rest of their natural lives, and provide all health care and fiscal support needed, with a cheery smile on your face each and every day. How honest and caring of you. No complaints now when Social Security is cut to pay for the war on the boogey-man. No complaints when the drug bill comes in. Just sunshine and roses that you have a breathing human plant in your spare bedroom.

4-18-2007 1:05 PM

rpetersen

Not all abortions are the result of the knowledge that a child will be born into a vegetative state.

4-18-2007 1:29 PM

Be that has it may, those which are known to be such are still outlawed because of the superstitions of religious beliefs. Where is the mercy for those born as such, and the parents who must live with the need of the religious to intrude into their lives?

4-18-2007 1:42 PM

BartendingBear - Where does your cynical ideas of life come from? You sound sad and down trodden about someone actually standing up for a little infant child, for the idea of life being preserved, for the idea of seeing the infant as a life not to be snuffed out just because someone just decides that the baby is not worth the time and the trouble and decides to kill it. What happened to you? Does the idea of life scare you that much? It is a baby for sake.

4-18-2007 1:43 PM

n2sooners

What religious beliefs would that be? The idea that taking an innocent human life is wrong is strictly a religious belief?

4-18-2007 2:18 PM

So, I take your answers to be "No." to the acceptance of the parenting role as suggested. How very noble.

"One for LIFE!" would be appropriate were there a MANDATE imposed FORCING the procedure, rather than the rational position of allowing the parents and Drs. to make informed decisions based on personal beliefs, medical outlook, and abilities to cope with any decision reached.

Salve your personal perspectives at the expense of someone's liberty to express their own WITHIN THEIR OWN LIVES UNRELATED TO YOURS. How convenient for you.

4-18-2007 2:27 PM

n2sooners

But what of the life of the child which is having his or her brains being sucked out? It stops strictly being about your rights when it infringes on the life of another human being.

And lets not forget. This isn't a ban on all abortions. It isn't even a ban on late term abortions. It is a ban on a procedure where labor is forced, the baby is then delivered breech until all but the head is exposed (if the head comes out, then they have a baby), then they stab the infant at the base of the skull and suck out it's brains before finishing the delivery.

4-18-2007 3:22 PM

But what of the life of the child which is having his or her brains being sucked out? It stops strictly being about your rights when it infringes on the life of another human being.

You're being too general. In cases where the brain never even develops, there IS no consciousness, no human being. Overall, I do not support partial birth abortion. But we cannot eliminate all exceptions.

Now, I'm personally against abortion for convenience. But I cannot in good conscience make a blanket decision for a woman's circumstances.

And the first person who says "she could just keep her legs closed" gets the Moron Award.

4-18-2007 4:37 PM

No consciousness! I have two children and one on the way. Are you really going to tell me that the children I saw in the 3D ultra-sound in my wifes womb had no consciousness? PLEASE! For people who do not have children, and I have no idea if anyone here has or has not, you are lying to your self, if you really think the child has no consciousness. My God, have you not seen the e-mail that has gone around before,where the DR. is doing a fetal surgery and the baby grabs the finger of the DR. WHAT THE HECK! That has to be SOMETHING! That has to be some kind of consciousness on the babies part. Give me a break!

4-18-2007 4:43 PM

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/babysamuel.htm

The PIC is true.

4-18-2007 4:47 PM

No, I'm going to tell you that a fetus with conditions like anencephaly has no brain/stem, therefore no nerve impulses and no consciousness. I'm not talking about fetuses in general. Read the entire statement before reacting emotionally.

4-18-2007 8:05 PM

brazilnut72

1. The idea that someone can only be against abortion if they are willing to adopt is like saying that someone can only be expect good service in a restaurant if they are willing to be a waiter.

2. I do believe that statistics show that the vast majority of abortions are performed on perfectly healthy babies--not on those with no brain stems. Are we really willing to allow the killing of the many for the few.

3. Please don't say you would be willing to abort this. At least don't say it while you are standing close to me.

4-18-2007 8:35 PM

bferman

First of all, this is not a ban on all partial birth abortions. There are exceptions made in the case that the mother's health is at risk. Secondly, the American Medical Association has said the procedure is “not good medicine” and is
“not medically indicated” in any situation.

Partial birth abortion is used in the 2nd or 3rd trimester (there is a brain and brain stem during this time) and usually performed on a viable baby. The ultrasound-guided procedure is essentially th...

4-18-2007 10:30 PM

BitDrifter

"There are exceptions made in the case that the mother's health is at risk."

No, there is no exception for the mother's health. This is a total ban, no exceptions.

4-19-2007 10:01 AM

2. I do believe that statistics show that the vast majority of abortions are performed on perfectly healthy babies--not on those with no brain stems.

3. Please don't say you would be willing to abort this. At least don't say it while you are standing close to me.

Agreed. But I wasn't talking about them. I was talking directly about fetuses with no consciousness.

No, I personally would not be willing to abort. But I cannot be judge to any other woman's circumstances.

4-19-2007 10:06 AM

Partial birth abortion is used in the 2nd or 3rd trimester (there is a brain and brain stem during this time) and usually performed on a viable baby.

Yes. And I believe the stats are about .4%, and only in extreme medical cases. It's not a common procedure, nor done on demand. The ban is political, not based on some actual trend in usage.

4-19-2007 10:34 PM

bferman

According to the Chicago Tribune, the Supreme Court's decision regarding partial birth abortion has an exception that allows the procedure if needed to preserve the life of the mother.

From the article: "It does have an exception to
preserve the life of the mother"

I have read and heard this same statement elsewhere although I have not read the court documents first hand.

4-20-2007 12:10 AM

BitDrifter

Ahh here is where we are getting hung up. I was wrong in saying it was a total ban, and you were incorrect in using the word "health" in your first comment.

The law does not allow an exception for the health of the Mother. But does allow an exception for the life of the mother. They are drawing a distinction between health and life.

As illustrated by this AP artice:
"The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health"

"The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion

4-20-2007 8:49 AM

Unfortunately, news is coming out that, even with the exception, the woman would have to go to court to prove it. I'm sure some judge would be happy to draw it out until the procedure could no longer occur.

4-20-2007 11:47 AM