There was a statement in 1992, of Ireland's foremost obstetricans and gynaecologists: “As obstetricians and gynaecologists, we affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child.” (Letter to Irish Times, 1st April 1992, signed by Professor John Bonnar, Head of the Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Trinity College, Dublin; Kieran O’Driscoll, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at University College, Dublin; Eamonn O’Dwyer, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at University College, Galway; and Julia Vaughan, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist.)
There was another study that saw 151 abortions that were performed to save the mothers live (from 1967-90) and that number is %0.004 of all abortions performed.
it seems that the notion for the health of the mother MAY be something to tug at heartstrings of people, but not have as much grounding in reality as people would like.
I looked around but couldn't find any numbers to back up either sides case. I could find people saying that abortions are / aren't necessary to save the mother, but i couldnt find any number to say how many abortions were performed for that reason.
Oh yes, go back to catholic ireland of 1992... you'll find it's an entirely different place now. Besides your 2 studies conflict with eachother... 151 does not equate 0
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
So, if you thought a human life was being destroyed, you'd do nothing to save it. You sit in the corner and let the destruction, a new halocaust happen. Let's use murder as an example of human life being destroyed. Someone murders someone. Your response above says, you don't like murder? Than don't murder anyone. Let the murders be.
That's what I call BS. I don't know you at all.... and I do think you are better than that.
wow :( do you hang out at abortion clinics and throw eggs at these poor women? :( sick sick sick but hey, if it makes YOU feel better to call people in such sad situations murderers, well then you ARE one sick fucker!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
How is being pro-choice not being for keeping abortion legal...thus pro-legal abortion?
Seriously, let's just stop looking at these ridiculous labels anyhow.
Look, pro-legal abortion implies that you support legal abortions for 100% of pregnancies. Are we some off-shoot of China? I think not. Pro-choice is the right term. I am for giving a woman the choice to follow her own decision based on what she believes is right for her. She's going to live with the decision--the choice--she makes, so of course, I'm pro-choice. I shouldn't have to live with the choice anyone else makes for me, nor should my ideas dictate what anyone but me decides to do with respect to abortion.
first of all, at least in california, planned parenthoods are like 7-11. let's be real. There's one within a 10 min walk of where I went to school. In Orange, Ca, right on the santa ana line. a 20 min. drive from anywhere in OC.
And you walk right in, pay your money, they hand you some stupid abstinence pamphlets, you flll out the form , and they send your lady right in. I know from experience as a morally ambiguous youth. It's a cold bitch of an experience, and most will tell you that much at least.
But no on'es telling my kids that they cannot abort at the expense of their own lives, all minutia aside. There's just no real threat of that happening.
The argument you present is detail oriented, unless I missed something.
I'm trying to present a big picture view, if possible. But the view is my own.
I think we're talking about different things. I'm not saying abortion is not an option for your kids, especially at the expense of their own lives.
I thought this thread was about the conversation McCain and Obama had in the debate last night about the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban". McCain said Obama didn't vote for the ban and Obama explained that he didn't vote for it because it doesn't contain an exception for the HEALTH of the mother (it does contain one for the life of the mother) and then McCain trivialized the idea of having a health exception.
But, regardless of the fact that Obama didn't vote for it, the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" did pass, is still in effect, and does NOT contain an exception for the health of the mother. This is unconstitutional because, as ruled in Roe, a woman has a right to abortion under the 14th Amendment and laws criminalizing abortion are limited to post-viability abortions and must contain an exception for the life AND HEALTH of the mother.
That's all I'm saying. But maybe I'm in the wrong thread or something....
You know what I can't understand about this debate? How can McCain say abortion should be a state issue and at the same time support a federal ban?
If Roe was overturned, would all federal abortion laws be void? It gets so convoluted sometimes. We need a constitutional lawyer to figure it all out...
Why can't they just take the unwanted babies and place them in an incubator like chicken eggs, then everyone is happy. Then we can tax the churches to get the funding to raise the lil babies until they can make it on their own.
people probably won't be able to feed their babies (or themselves) soon enough
cart before the horse thread.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I think we're talking about different things. I'm not saying abortion is not an option for your kids, especially at the expense of their own lives.
I thought this thread was about the conversation McCain and Obama had in the debate last night about the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban". McCain said Obama didn't vote for the ban and Obama explained that he didn't vote for it because it doesn't contain an exception for the HEALTH of the mother (it does contain one for the life of the mother) and then McCain trivialized the idea of having a health exception.
But, regardless of the fact that Obama didn't vote for it, the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" did pass, is still in effect, and does NOT contain an exception for the health of the mother. This is unconstitutional because, as ruled in Roe, a woman has a right to abortion under the 14th Amendment and laws criminalizing abortion are limited to post-viability abortions and must contain an exception for the life AND HEALTH of the mother.
That's all I'm saying. But maybe I'm in the wrong thread or something....
unless Im missing something, you are incorrect:
This statute prohibits A METHOD of abortion in the United States that it names "partial birth abortion". The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester,[3] from 18 to 26 weeks, some of which occur before and some of which occur after viability. The law itself contains no reference to gestational age or viability. The present statute is directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion.[4]
The statute includes two findings of Congress:
“ (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, BUT IN FACT POSES SERIOUS RISKS TO THE LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE WOMEN and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
”
Despite its finding that "partial-birth abortion ... is ... unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother", the statute includes the following provision:
“ This subsection DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION THAT IS NECESSARY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A MOTHER whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Its a non-issue because neither party wants to take a real political risk in even bringing this up. The court has decided.
life-over-life is so far away from being infringed (if it ever is) that technology and healthcare will have largely solved the problem by the time we could ever get there.
wow :( do you hang out at abortion clinics and throw eggs at these poor women? :( sick sick sick but hey, if it makes YOU feel better to call people in such sad situations murderers, well then you ARE one sick fucker!
No, I do not and I would never do such a thing. However, I express my opinion on the subject. I think abortion is wrong. If you can read, please refer back to exchange I was having. I said I would stick up for what I believe in... that's what I said. The poster who I was responding to said that she thinks it's best to not do anything at all. Anyway, I really appreciate your attempt to put words in my mouth.
I also appreciate NOT being called names. I think the mods would most likely agree... if you need help, refer to the rules of MT.... if you have trouble reading them, PM the mods.
Look, pro-legal abortion implies that you support legal abortions for 100% of pregnancies. Are we some off-shoot of China? I think not. Pro-choice is the right term. I am for giving a woman the choice to follow her own decision based on what she believes is right for her. She's going to live with the decision--the choice--she makes, so of course, I'm pro-choice. I shouldn't have to live with the choice anyone else makes for me, nor should my ideas dictate what anyone but me decides to do with respect to abortion.
I'm pro-choice too, allowing the baby to be born and choose ho they want to live their life.
There are ways in which a pregnancy can severely affect the health of the pregnant woman. For example, pre-existing conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, and pregnancy inducing conditions such as preeclampsia, can endanger the health of a woman should she become pregnant.
My sister-in-law has a birth defect involving her right hip. Doctors have told her that if she gets pregnant, it could cause further complications for her hip down the road, and may even affect her ability to walk.
I guess my point is that there are situations to consider where the pregnant woman's health could be negatively affected. And yes, there are conditions in which an abortion may be necessary to save the woman's life, like an ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal.
Chicago 2000 : Chicago 2003 : Chicago 2006 : Summerfest 2006 : Lollapalooza 2007 : Chicago 2009 : Noblesville (Indy) 2010 : PJ20 (East Troy) 2011 : Wrigley Field 2013 : Milwaukee (Yield) 2014 : Wrigley Field 2016
There are ways in which a pregnancy can severely affect the health of the pregnant woman. For example, pre-existing conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, and pregnancy inducing conditions such as preeclampsia, can endanger the health of a woman should she become pregnant.
My sister-in-law has a birth defect involving her right hip. Doctors have told her that if she gets pregnant, it could cause further complications for her hip down the road, and may even affect her ability to walk.
I guess my point is that there are situations to consider where the pregnant woman's health could be negatively affected. And yes, there are conditions in which an abortion may be necessary to save the woman's life, like an ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal.
And this is exactly what McCain was talking about...are we aborting babies late-term to save the mother's life...or to save her hip? But anyhow, someone that is "pro-choice" wouldn't think it mattered anyway.
This statute prohibits A METHOD of abortion in the United States that it names "partial birth abortion". The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester,[3] from 18 to 26 weeks, some of which occur before and some of which occur after viability. The law itself contains no reference to gestational age or viability. The present statute is directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion.[4]
The statute includes two findings of Congress:
“ (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, BUT IN FACT POSES SERIOUS RISKS TO THE LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE WOMEN and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
”
Despite its finding that "partial-birth abortion ... is ... unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother", the statute includes the following provision:
“ This subsection DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION THAT IS NECESSARY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A MOTHER whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
next...
Right. I'm very well aware of what the law says and what I said wasn't incorrect.
I think I've pointed this out several times already, but we're talking about a HEALTH exception, not a LIFE exception. I know the law has a life exception. It does not have a HEALTH exception. And I'm also aware that it refers only to so-called "partial birth abortions," hence the title of the law....
Right. I'm very well aware of what the law says and what I said wasn't incorrect.
I think I've pointed this out several times already, but we're talking about a HEALTH exception, not a LIFE exception. I know the law has a life exception. It does not have a HEALTH exception. And I'm also aware that it refers only to so-called "partial birth abortions," hence the title of the law....
It is legislation "directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion",
a method that "is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited"
by "A moral, medical, and ethical consensus" that further concludes
it is a "procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, BUT IN FACT POSES SERIOUS RISKS TO THE LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE WOMEN and in some circumstances, their lives"
I just don't see where the rub is here, regardless of your stance on abortion.
the point is to "unite" and "build concensus" right?
Who exactly are we protecting by opposing this legislation?
No, I do not and I would never do such a thing. However, I express my opinion on the subject. I think abortion is wrong. If you can read, please refer back to exchange I was having. I said I would stick up for what I believe in... that's what I said. The poster who I was responding to said that she thinks it's best to not do anything at all. Anyway, I really appreciate your attempt to put words in my mouth.
I also appreciate NOT being called names. I think the mods would most likely agree... if you need help, refer to the rules of MT.... if you have trouble reading them, PM the mods.
but you firstly called me Pro Abortion. I didn't directly call you a name either... I said IF you call some poor girl who has to have an abortion a murderer then you're sick!
Anyway, I do not think abortion is right either... BUT I have never been in that situation and until you've walked a mile in someone's shoes you certainly can't judge them. It's certainly not something I'd like to see anyone have to go through as I've helped a couple of people through it and it was NOT a decision taken lightly by any standards... neither was it used as a form of contraception. So, while it's not something I consider to be 'right', were I IN that situation how am I supposed to know what's best or how I'd feel about it then... because I've never lived it! THAT'S why I'm pro choice! I know it's necessary for some people and their ONLY option. I was not BORN pro choice... I became this way having SEEN the reality of certain situations!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
And this is exactly what McCain was talking about...are we aborting babies late-term to save the mother's life...or to save her hip? But anyhow, someone that is "pro-choice" wouldn't think it mattered anyway.
Thanks for being completely insensitive about my sister-in-laws condition. I guess you missed the part that said if she had a baby, she would lose the ability to walk. Or do you just not care?
Chicago 2000 : Chicago 2003 : Chicago 2006 : Summerfest 2006 : Lollapalooza 2007 : Chicago 2009 : Noblesville (Indy) 2010 : PJ20 (East Troy) 2011 : Wrigley Field 2013 : Milwaukee (Yield) 2014 : Wrigley Field 2016
There are ways in which a pregnancy can severely affect the health of the pregnant woman. For example, pre-existing conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, and pregnancy inducing conditions such as preeclampsia, can endanger the health of a woman should she become pregnant.
My sister-in-law has a birth defect involving her right hip. Doctors have told her that if she gets pregnant, it could cause further complications for her hip down the road, and may even affect her ability to walk.
I guess my point is that there are situations to consider where the pregnant woman's health could be negatively affected.
As much as I feel for any disabled person, this argument is a kick in the balls.
You execercise your reproductive freedom the moment you hit the sack unprotected, like it or not. And your sister was pretty much informed as to the consequences.
And so, to pursue your argument, you're telling me one should be allowed to wait 4-1/2 MONTHS to decide that THE POSSIBILITY of an imparment in her walking ability trumps a viable pregnancy?
And of all viable pregnancies terminated, how many are on this grounds?
We're allowing this gruesome method to be legal so a few people can walk better?
It's starting to make me ill. I'll try to refrain for your sister's sake...
Who said anything about 4 1/2 months? Nobody was talking about that. I'm just saying that there are legitimate reasons that a woman should choose to protect her health. I guess my main point is that it is no one's choice but hers. Nobody on this board has the right to make that decision for her. And unless you're in that situation yourself, do you really have any right to judge?
Chicago 2000 : Chicago 2003 : Chicago 2006 : Summerfest 2006 : Lollapalooza 2007 : Chicago 2009 : Noblesville (Indy) 2010 : PJ20 (East Troy) 2011 : Wrigley Field 2013 : Milwaukee (Yield) 2014 : Wrigley Field 2016
As much as I feel for any disabled person, this argument is a kick in the balls.
You execercise your reproductive freedom the moment you hit the sack unprotected, like it or not. And your sister was pretty much informed as to the consequences.
And so, to pursue your argument, you're telling me one should be allowed to wait 4-1/2 MONTHS to decide that THE POSSIBILITY of an imparment in her walking ability trumps a viable pregnancy?
And of all viable pregnancies terminated, how many are on this grounds?
We're allowing this gruesome method to be legal so a few people can walk better?
It's starting to make me ill. I'll try to refrain for your sister's sake...
You assumed she 'hit the sack unprotected'.
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
Isn't that the only way to get pregnant? Stupidity and selfishness :rolleyes:
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
It is legislation "directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion",
a method that "is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited"
by "A moral, medical, and ethical consensus" that further concludes
it is a "procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, BUT IN FACT POSES SERIOUS RISKS TO THE LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE WOMEN and in some circumstances, their lives"
I just don't see where the rub is here, regardless of your stance on abortion.
the point is to "unite" and "build concensus" right?
Who exactly are we protecting by opposing this legislation?
We're protecting the women who need this procedure to protect their health.
Many doctors disagree with the assertion made by these politicians, which you have quoted above. (I understand that they based this on the testemony of *some* doctors, but when doctors disagree, it is up to the medical community and the individual doctor/patient relationship - NOT the political community - to decide what is the best/safest standard of care.) If I want to know whether or not I need this particular procedure to preserve my health, I'm going to ask MY doctor - not the Supreme Court.
And, for the record, the friggin' American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists OPPOSED the ban for medical reasons. Here's their official statement:
Washington, DC -- Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.
"Today's decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women," said Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, ACOG president. "It leaves no doubt that women's health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.
"We have seen a steady erosion of women's reproductive rights in this country. The Supreme Court's action today, though stunning, in many ways isn't surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion," he added.
This decision discounts and disregards the MEDICAL CONSENSUS that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.
"On behalf of the 51,000 ACOG members who strive to provide the very best possible medical care to the women we serve, I can only hope that in the future, science will again be at the core of decision-making that affects the life and well-being of all of us," said Dr. Laube.
Who said anything about 4 1/2 months? Nobody was talking about that. I'm just saying that there are legitimate reasons that a woman should choose to protect her health. I guess my main point is that it is no one's choice but hers. Nobody on this board has the right to make that decision for her. And unless you're in that situation yourself, do you really have any right to judge?
Hey, I'm pro-choice. I've never seen world through the eyes of a woman.
But this is another detail-oriented argument. We're arguing a very hypothetical and unlikely scenario, which refutes the argument altogether.
The legislation clearly prihibits only one method of abortion, used most commonly in the 18-36 week range. Which is 4-1/2 months.
This legislation does not prohibit your sister-in-law, or anyone else from using any other method of abortion or contraception.
And of all viable pregnancies terminated, how many are on this grounds?
We're allowing this gruesome method to be legal so a few people can walk better?
Uh, I'm sorry, but aren't you the one who just said:
This statute prohibits A METHOD of abortion in the United States that it names "partial birth abortion". The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester
And now, just a few posts later, you're suggesting that this method should be banned because it ends VIABLE pregnancies and that this ban would STOP late-term abortions? :rolleyes: Do you just not get it, or are you not able to make up your mind?
PEOPLE: The Partial Birth Abortion Ban DOES NOT ban late-term abortions, even the abortion of viable pregnancies. Late-term abortions still happen; they're just not able to use this particular METHOD anymore.
Besides, didn't any of you pro-life folks notice that Obama said he would SUPPORT a ban on late-term abortions?? (This would end more abortions than the stupid ban they have.) Or did you just tune him out?
Comments
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Pro-choice is accurate. It's supporting your choice to either have an abortion or not.
Look, pro-legal abortion implies that you support legal abortions for 100% of pregnancies. Are we some off-shoot of China? I think not. Pro-choice is the right term. I am for giving a woman the choice to follow her own decision based on what she believes is right for her. She's going to live with the decision--the choice--she makes, so of course, I'm pro-choice. I shouldn't have to live with the choice anyone else makes for me, nor should my ideas dictate what anyone but me decides to do with respect to abortion.
How is options advocate any improvement over pro-choice? It's the same thing. Is there an award for best synonym?
I think we're talking about different things. I'm not saying abortion is not an option for your kids, especially at the expense of their own lives.
I thought this thread was about the conversation McCain and Obama had in the debate last night about the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban". McCain said Obama didn't vote for the ban and Obama explained that he didn't vote for it because it doesn't contain an exception for the HEALTH of the mother (it does contain one for the life of the mother) and then McCain trivialized the idea of having a health exception.
But, regardless of the fact that Obama didn't vote for it, the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" did pass, is still in effect, and does NOT contain an exception for the health of the mother. This is unconstitutional because, as ruled in Roe, a woman has a right to abortion under the 14th Amendment and laws criminalizing abortion are limited to post-viability abortions and must contain an exception for the life AND HEALTH of the mother.
That's all I'm saying. But maybe I'm in the wrong thread or something....
If Roe was overturned, would all federal abortion laws be void? It gets so convoluted sometimes. We need a constitutional lawyer to figure it all out...
cart before the horse thread.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It's not very specific and therefore not accurate.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
unless Im missing something, you are incorrect:
This statute prohibits A METHOD of abortion in the United States that it names "partial birth abortion". The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester,[3] from 18 to 26 weeks, some of which occur before and some of which occur after viability. The law itself contains no reference to gestational age or viability. The present statute is directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion.[4]
The statute includes two findings of Congress:
“ (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, BUT IN FACT POSES SERIOUS RISKS TO THE LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE WOMEN and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
”
Despite its finding that "partial-birth abortion ... is ... unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother", the statute includes the following provision:
“ This subsection DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION THAT IS NECESSARY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A MOTHER whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
next...
Its a non-issue because neither party wants to take a real political risk in even bringing this up. The court has decided.
life-over-life is so far away from being infringed (if it ever is) that technology and healthcare will have largely solved the problem by the time we could ever get there.
And partial birth abortion is friggin disgusting.
No, I do not and I would never do such a thing. However, I express my opinion on the subject. I think abortion is wrong. If you can read, please refer back to exchange I was having. I said I would stick up for what I believe in... that's what I said. The poster who I was responding to said that she thinks it's best to not do anything at all. Anyway, I really appreciate your attempt to put words in my mouth.
I also appreciate NOT being called names. I think the mods would most likely agree... if you need help, refer to the rules of MT.... if you have trouble reading them, PM the mods.
I'm pro-choice too, allowing the baby to be born and choose ho they want to live their life.
My sister-in-law has a birth defect involving her right hip. Doctors have told her that if she gets pregnant, it could cause further complications for her hip down the road, and may even affect her ability to walk.
I guess my point is that there are situations to consider where the pregnant woman's health could be negatively affected. And yes, there are conditions in which an abortion may be necessary to save the woman's life, like an ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal.
And this is exactly what McCain was talking about...are we aborting babies late-term to save the mother's life...or to save her hip? But anyhow, someone that is "pro-choice" wouldn't think it mattered anyway.
Right. I'm very well aware of what the law says and what I said wasn't incorrect.
I think I've pointed this out several times already, but we're talking about a HEALTH exception, not a LIFE exception. I know the law has a life exception. It does not have a HEALTH exception. And I'm also aware that it refers only to so-called "partial birth abortions," hence the title of the law....
:rolleyes:
It is legislation "directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion",
a method that "is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited"
by "A moral, medical, and ethical consensus" that further concludes
it is a "procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, BUT IN FACT POSES SERIOUS RISKS TO THE LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE WOMEN and in some circumstances, their lives"
I just don't see where the rub is here, regardless of your stance on abortion.
the point is to "unite" and "build concensus" right?
Who exactly are we protecting by opposing this legislation?
Anyway, I do not think abortion is right either... BUT I have never been in that situation and until you've walked a mile in someone's shoes you certainly can't judge them. It's certainly not something I'd like to see anyone have to go through as I've helped a couple of people through it and it was NOT a decision taken lightly by any standards... neither was it used as a form of contraception. So, while it's not something I consider to be 'right', were I IN that situation how am I supposed to know what's best or how I'd feel about it then... because I've never lived it! THAT'S why I'm pro choice! I know it's necessary for some people and their ONLY option. I was not BORN pro choice... I became this way having SEEN the reality of certain situations!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Thanks for being completely insensitive about my sister-in-laws condition. I guess you missed the part that said if she had a baby, she would lose the ability to walk. Or do you just not care?
As much as I feel for any disabled person, this argument is a kick in the balls.
You execercise your reproductive freedom the moment you hit the sack unprotected, like it or not. And your sister was pretty much informed as to the consequences.
And so, to pursue your argument, you're telling me one should be allowed to wait 4-1/2 MONTHS to decide that THE POSSIBILITY of an imparment in her walking ability trumps a viable pregnancy?
And of all viable pregnancies terminated, how many are on this grounds?
We're allowing this gruesome method to be legal so a few people can walk better?
It's starting to make me ill. I'll try to refrain for your sister's sake...
You assumed she 'hit the sack unprotected'.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
details...
In the BIG PICTURE
If you oppose this legislation, you are hurting a great many an helping no one.
Any other analysis is intellectually dishonest. Where is the gray area here?
We're protecting the women who need this procedure to protect their health.
Many doctors disagree with the assertion made by these politicians, which you have quoted above. (I understand that they based this on the testemony of *some* doctors, but when doctors disagree, it is up to the medical community and the individual doctor/patient relationship - NOT the political community - to decide what is the best/safest standard of care.) If I want to know whether or not I need this particular procedure to preserve my health, I'm going to ask MY doctor - not the Supreme Court.
And, for the record, the friggin' American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists OPPOSED the ban for medical reasons. Here's their official statement:
Hey, I'm pro-choice. I've never seen world through the eyes of a woman.
But this is another detail-oriented argument. We're arguing a very hypothetical and unlikely scenario, which refutes the argument altogether.
The legislation clearly prihibits only one method of abortion, used most commonly in the 18-36 week range. Which is 4-1/2 months.
This legislation does not prohibit your sister-in-law, or anyone else from using any other method of abortion or contraception.
Take a morning after pill or something, sheesh.
And this argument still providing for the few, not the many.
Uh, I'm sorry, but aren't you the one who just said:
And now, just a few posts later, you're suggesting that this method should be banned because it ends VIABLE pregnancies and that this ban would STOP late-term abortions? :rolleyes: Do you just not get it, or are you not able to make up your mind?
PEOPLE: The Partial Birth Abortion Ban DOES NOT ban late-term abortions, even the abortion of viable pregnancies. Late-term abortions still happen; they're just not able to use this particular METHOD anymore.
Besides, didn't any of you pro-life folks notice that Obama said he would SUPPORT a ban on late-term abortions?? (This would end more abortions than the stupid ban they have.) Or did you just tune him out?