Judge Rules Against Partial-Birth Abortion Law

[Moses]

Originally posted by nostatic
Can you say that unequivocably, without knowing the medical and social circumstances of each particular case?

I have no problems with late term abortion in cases where there are significant fetal health issues. No problem at all. We are discussing elective third trimester abortion of healthy babies.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Moses
I have no problems with late term abortion in cases where there are significant fetal health issues. No problem at all. We are discussing elective third trimester abortion of healthy babies.

What about the health of the mother?

And your previous statement didn't include the above disclaimer. Your slope is slipping

[Moses]

Originally posted by nostatic
What about the health of the mother?

And your previous statement didn't include the above disclaimer. Your slope is slipping

I addressed that previously. In the third trimester there exists no known medical condition that requires killing the fetus prior to delivery.

Interestingly, all the 3rd trimester abortions at my hospital in New York were done ostensibly to "preserve the mothers health". The women were unhappy about being pregnant, so the abortion was needed to preserve their "mental health". It was a rubber-stamp diagnosis that satisfied the state requirements.

[pbs911]

Although a strict conservative, the one issue I totally disagree with is banning abortion. Each person has a right to do as they wish with their bodies. It just so happens the fetus is within a woman's body. I will begin to give creedance to the pro life movement when I begin to see pro lifers pick up the unwanted babies and raise them as their own, without public funds. It seems all they are good at doing is talking, and the occational Dr. assasination.

But, as long as individuals beleive they have a right to determine what another individual can do to their body, then I say lets begin a mandatory sterilization program. All males and females who hit puberity must be temporarily sterilized. After a person is deemed mature enough to have a child the procedure could be reversed so they can concieve. If a person never becomes mature enough, well society would be a better place. At least this would provide a compromise by cleaning up the population and limiting the number of potential abortions as only those individuals who desire to concieve are physically able to.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by pbs911
I will begin to give creedance to the pro life movement when I begin to see pro lifers pick up the unwanted babies and raise them as their own, without public funds. It seems all they are good at doing is talking, and the occational Dr. assasination.

Yup...that's why I consider them "pro-birth".

But, as long as individuals beleive they have a right to determine what another individual can do to their body, then I say lets begin a mandatory sterilization program. All males and females who hit puberity must be temporarily sterilized. After a person is deemed mature enough to have a child the procedure could be reversed so they can concieve. If a person never becomes mature enough, well society would be a better place. At least this would provide a compromise by cleaning up the population and limiting the number of potential abortions as only those individuals who desire to concieve are physically able to.

Yow! Now you're talking. Although you head down another slippery slope here. What are the metrics for "maturity", and why not expand the criteria to include intelligence, screen for possible mental and physical disorders, etc.

A less intrusive procedure would be to require a "parents license". And if you put the DMV in charge, people would have to wait in line so line they might never end up having kids.

[island911]

Originally posted by Moses
. . .
I feel passionately about this issue because I'm definitely pro-choice, but this small fraction of abortions is morally indefensible.

Remember, we are talking about an elective procedure here. Mothers health is not in jeopardy and she is carrying a near-term healthy baby. If you still believe an abortion should be OK in this case, then you frighten me.

Per Bill Cosbey: "Son, I brought you in to this world . . . and I can take you out."

How's that for extreme?


The way I see it is, a healthy baby has value. (along with liability)
If a decision maker (mother, father, doctor) makes a call to "abort" a near-term healthy baby, they had better have some justification(s) well beyond "it's my/our right."

However, because the newborn also carries liability, that some 'parents' can not cope with, perhaps CPS (society) should be there to take the responsibility . ..step in as a child-abandonment issue. . ..that is what it is.

There are many places in time when a 'parent' may abandon their offspring. The question is, is a newborn baby valuable enough to have others in society feel fine about taking the responsibility?

As it is now, we have mostly/only outrage toward the abandoning 'parent'. . .yet a law against PBA would simpley shift the abandonment in time . . dumpster babies, and all.

[nostatic]

Jake: How much for the little girl? The women? How much for the women?

Customer: What?

Jake: Your women. I want to buy your women. The little girl, your daughters. Sell them to me. Sell me your children!

Customer: Matre d'! Matre d'!

[island911]

"Value" does not always equate directly to "monitary value". . . ..though I think you know that.

[Burnin' oil]

Several years ago, Senator Santorum (PA) asked Senator Boxer (CA), who was arguing in favor of partial-birth abortion, if she would support a mother's "right" to kill a post-birth baby. She would not answer the question, which spoke volumes. Apparently, people on this board would also decline to draw a line.

[Moses]

Originally posted by Burnin' oil
Several years ago, Senator Santorum (PA) asked Senator Boxer (CA), who was arguing in favor of partial-birth abortion, if she would support a mother's "right" to kill a post-birth baby. She would not answer the question, which spoke volumes. Apparently, people on this board would also decline to draw a line.

Frightening, isn't it?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Burnin' oil
Several years ago, Senator Santorum (PA) asked Senator Boxer (CA), who was arguing in favor of partial-birth abortion, if she would support a mother's "right" to kill a post-birth baby. She would not answer the question, which spoke volumes. Apparently, people on this board would also decline to draw a line.

How does that "speak volumes"? Do you have video footage of the exchange? Do you have a context? Perhaps she just chose to ignore the question becuase of the tone or context? Or because it is inflammatory and doesn't deserve a repsponse. I think you know what her answer would be: "no".

People *have* drawn a line. It is when the baby is born. You are free to disagree with it, but you can't claim they aren't drawing the line.

I would prefer to draw the line somwhere in the 2nd timester. But I also know that there are plenty of people out there who will take an inch and do anything in their power (including cold blooded murder) to push their moral compass on others.

So how many abandonded crack babys have you guys adopted? Zero? I think that speaks volumes...

[nostatic]

and in fact your characterization of the Santorum/Boxer exchange is incorrect. Read the complete exchange here:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/notansweringboxersantorum.html

[nostatic]

and Santorum and Hillary going at it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863886/posts

[pbs911]

Several years ago, Senator Santorum (PA) asked Senator Boxer (CA), who was arguing in favor of partial-birth abortion, if she would support a mother's "right" to kill a post-birth baby. She would not answer the question, which spoke volumes. Apparently, people on this board would also decline to draw a line.

I would refuse to, even if this question was made in the proper context. The question is not relevant to the issue, is ridiculous and a red herring meant only to inflame passions. The question is a perfect example of the right to life mentality - illogical.