Partial Birth Abortion banned by Senate

Thank. God.

Yea, I was bored so I watched the debate on CSPAN. At first I didn't think it was gonna go, cause they had the motion going to table it, and I was hearing lot's of 'ayes'. Guess I should have stuck around and watched more. I also keep hearing that it doesn't allow for medical exceptions. Well as the bill was being debated/voted. Cspan shows what the contents were on bottem of the screen. It sais that one can be done in case of 2 doctors showing that it's in best interest of mother's health.

Hmmm

gwyyn

Praise God, it's a start back in the right direction. Thank God for His mercy upon us!

Praise God!

Okay, thanks blindfaith.

Well, I don't know much about "partial birth abortions", but based on the description in the article, banning it sure sounds like a good thing.

Tau ~ you don't have to trash it, just edit it and put a smiley face in it or something.  If you can't, I'll do it for you if you want.

Regarding the PBA/Senate: 

It's about time.  Yeah!!!

It'll be overturned by the Supreme Court. It was a symbolic gesture, designed to make the Republican base think Bush and Co care about what they want.

Notice that an amendment to provide an exception in cases where the health of the mother is at stake was voted down. That amendment would have fixed the primary concern of the Supreme Court last time it struck down partial-birth bans.

*shrug*. You got used, because nothing will change and everyone knows it. But this way, pro-choice people don't get angry and turn out to vote (because the Supreme Court will axe it) and pro-life people get to think the Republicans are actually passing the laws they want, because everyone can simply blame the Supreme Court.

On a related topic, the Senate held a non-binding resolution on whether Roe versus Wade was good law. Amusingly, all fourteen female senators voted "Yea". Regardless of party. Darn, missed one. I read "Dole" as "Bob", not "Elizibeth". So Liddy voted "No".

I don't understand why those people who are happy about this vote are thanking God when clearly it's the senators who voted. 

cool, praise God, ive have been following this and even wrote about it in an assignment last wk!!!!!!!!!!!

With all due respect people, I think many of you are being played like a fiddle by a bunch of men who just wish to lock your vote.

(BTW, 'Partial Birth Abortion' doesn't even really exist - it's just a boogey man made up by the anti-abortion crowd.)

The senate fully realizes that this ban will not be passed and they are fully prepared to use the Supreme Court as the scape goat - and they realize most pro-lifers will swallow this tactic hook, line and sinker.

It's all a play.

Today at 10:43 AM Starscream said this in Post #11 (BTW, 'Partial Birth Abortion' doesn't even really exist - it's just a boogey man made up by the anti-abortion crowd.) 

Click to expand...

Oh, really?  What do you call sucking out a baby's brain when it's part way out of its mother's womb? 

You're right.  It's not abortion.  It's out and out murder.

Ironically, if the SC eventually rules this legislation unconstitutional, the bill's supporters will have to villify a nine-member court, seven of whom were Republican appointees. Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that the bill is overturned, it will be amusing to see people try to paint this court as the great liberal bogeyman.

And, yes, I too believe that the legislators behind this bill are using a hot-button issue to shore up their constituency because they must know that there is a fair chance the bill won't survive a legal challenge. More Washington posturing.

Today at 10:48 AM waterwizard said this in Post #12



Oh, really?  What do you call sucking out a baby's brain when it's part way out of its mother's womb? 

You're right.  It's not abortion.  It's out and out murder.

Click to expand...

I mean it is not a well defined term and it not used at all in the medical profession.  It's nothing but a layman term with no bounderies.

Well, this will get me flamed, but on this topic I couldn't care less, so here we go.

Legalized abortion (any kind, partial-birth or not) is basically the same thing as the Nuremberg Laws tied in with the Wannsee Conference.

In both cases, one segment of the population has been declared "not human" and therefore it's licit to destroy them. In the case of the Nuremberg Laws/Wannsee Conference it was Jews, in the case of abortion it's unborn children.

The business about the danger to the mother's health is a red herring. First, if they actually believe their own propaganda, she isn't carrying a child, so therefore she's not a mother. Second, most medical authorities agree that outside of necropsic pregnancy, the cases of a baby in utero being enough of a threat to the mother's health to require an abortion are small to non-existant.

So, we have another parallel: in the case of the Nuremberg Laws/Wannsee Conference, it was Lebensraum for the Germans; in the case of abortion, it's the convenience of the woman who doesn't want to be bothered with the child.

In either case, one group of human beings has to die, so that another group of human beings won't have to be bothered with them. The easiest way to do this is simply to declare that the first group of human beings aren't really human beings at all---they're something else entirely, and so it's therefore morally acceptable to kill them.

It's amazing what becomes acceptable when a segment of the population is declared to be something other than human beings. Suddenly laws don't apply to them any more---you can murder them, and it's legal, because that's not a baby, it's a fetus, or a blob of tissue; and Jews aren't people, they're subhumans.

You just have to be careful that you don't end up being in the next group to classified as something other than human (or something less than "convenient"), that's all. The Nazis started out with Jews and worked their way up to Poles, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, the insane, the handicapped, and the chronically ill. We started out with unborn children and have worked our way up to halfway-birthed children and the chronically ill and the elderly uninsured in Oregon.

Once you declare one portion of your population free to be liquidated, no portion of the population is safe; that's been demonstrated.

So: who's next?

Thank you; that was my say. You may now flame away, call me a reactionary, a blind conservative, a religious fanatic, a fool, a moron, an imbecile, and an idiot.

But you won't change my mind.

Let the merry rumpus begin.

Wols,

Today at 01:52 PM Wolseley said this in Post #15
Thank you; that was my say. You may now flame away, call me a reactionary, a blind conservative, a religious fanatic, a fool, a moron, an imbecile, and an idiot. 

Click to expand...

Aren't you being just a little bit too defensive?
I fully understand why this is a sensitive topic for many people - and I don't think other people foolish (or stupid or whatever) for having a different take on the issue.

But, I do think you do others a disservice by pretending to talk for them.  I am not pro-choice as a matter of convenience (and I doubt many people are) nor am I interesting in starting a campaign where we can start destroying anyone who doesn't fit my definition of human.

The problem lies in what right those a man like me have in controlling a woman's body?

If your really interested in getting down and dirty with the nitty gritty than I'll be more than happy to find ways to compare you and your religion to Nazi's - but I doubt that will accomplish much.

Edit to add:

BTW, I don't care much for the tactic: "Oh poor me!  Everyone is going to flame me and call me stupid for relating them TO NAZI's!"

Today at 02:44 PM Starscream said this in Post #17

The problem lies in what right those a man like me have in controlling a woman's body?
" [/B]

Click to expand...

You do not wish to control the women's body? But you will take the child's life?

Wolseley!!!

sorry, double post.

Today at 03:00 PM Stormy said this in Post #18

You do not wish to control the women's body? But you will take the child's life?

Wolseley!!!

Click to expand...

Those of us on different sides of this issue don't agree on what point a fertilzed egg becomes 'life'.  Your only tactic is to paint me as a 'child murderer' even though I clearly don't see it that way.

It would be nice to have these discussions without such loaded terms.